What Was Murdoch Trying To Do?
-
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(November 30, 2011 04:42 AM)
In those days when an officer orders "Hard-a-starboard" he means he wants the 'rudder' to move to starboard, not the wheel. In those days helm orders were still the same as old sailing ships i.e. the bridge of a ship in the days of sail was at the back of the ship, directly above the rudder. By 1912 this procedure was still being used, even though the bridge of a ship had moved to the front. So when Murdoch ordered "Hard-a-starboard" he wanted the rudder to turn right which means Hichens had to turn the wheel left because turning the wheel left makes the rudder turn right. It may sound confusing today but in those days it was common procedure. This command structure didn't change until the 1930's. In the 1930's if you wanted to turn left, you would order the wheel left, not the rudder, but in 1912 you would order the rudder right to make the ship turn left.
-
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(November 30, 2011 01:36 PM)
//So when Murdoch ordered "Hard-a-starboard" he wanted the rudder to turn right//
Perhaps you're correct about that. But I'll reserve judgment on that point until I see some evidence to back it up. A simple statement that "this is the way it was" falls somewhat short.
//turning the wheel left makes the rudder turn right//
No disagreement that this was the way it was on the Titanic in 1912.
//but in 1912 you would order the rudder right to make the ship turn left//
I think you need to justify that statement. There might have been some changes made in the 1930's as to how the wheel was configured to turn the rudder. But it would take a lot more evidence than what I've seen here to convince me that they also changed the laws of nature. When the rudder on a ship that is moving forward turns to the right, the ship turns to the right. That is always true regardless of any changes made in the method used to control the rudder.
Murdoch said, "I hard-astarboarded and reversed the engines, and I was going to hard-aport around it."
The Titanic was still moving in a forward direction and was turning to left when the collision occurred.
My question was: How did hard-astarboarding relate to hard-aporting around the iceberg, and how does it relate to the fact that the Titanic turned left? -
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(November 30, 2011 04:19 PM)
Murdoch tried to port around the iceberg. That means turn left and then turn right. He ordered Hichens to turn the ship left and when the iceberg hit he could see the stern was going to swing into the iceberg as it passed because they were turning left, so when it hit he ordered Hichens to turn right and swing the stern away from the iceberg. That is called 'porting around'.
Regarding the rudder. Turning the rudder right makes the ship turn left. Remember you are not turning the back of the rudder, you are turning the front of the rudder i.e. the part that is closest to the ship. So when you turn it to the right it makes the ship turn left. It's the same with all ships. In those days they used tiller commands instead of wheel commands because the era of tall sailing ships was not dead and the procedures stayed the same until the 1930's when tiller commands changed to wheel commands.
There are dozens of websites that discuss these changes. Here is one.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-577185.html -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(November 30, 2011 08:21 PM)
Okay, I think were making progress here.
//Murdoch tried to port around the iceberg. That means turn left and then turn right//
In my original post I concluded that when Murdoch said he tried to hard-aport around the iceberg, he meant by that that he had tried to turn the ship to the left and pass around with the iceberg on Titanics starboard side. Apparently that conclusion was correct.
//He ordered Hichens (sic) to turn the ship left//
Specifically, the order Murdoch gave Hitchens was hard-astarboard. I also concluded that the order hard-astarboard, when carried out, results in the ship turning left. Apparently that conclusion was also correct.
However if the intention is to turn the ship left and then right, then the order to Hitchens must first be starboard and then port. Murdochs statement was that he ordered hard-astarboard. He didnt mention anything about following that with the order hard-aport. But even if it wasnt mentioned, perhaps it was clearly implied when he said he tried to port around the iceberg.
//Regarding the rudder. Turning the rudder right makes the ship turn left.//
Im beginning to think were actually on the same page as far as understanding how the ship is turned. The point of discrepancy seems to be that we are using the same word, rudder, to refer to different things. Here is the description from the website you referred me to.
//I believe that this was a carry-over from the days of ships steered with a tiller instead of a wheel. To turn a ship to port, the tiller would be moved to starboard. The introduction of the steering wheel didn't replace the tiller it simply allowed the steering position to be moved elsewhere in the ship and the ropes from the wheel still controlled the movement of the tiller. The officer was ordering the helmsman to perform a particular task (moving the tiller to starboard) which would have the effect he wanted (moving the ship into a turn to port).//
I agree completely with the statement, To turn a ship to port, the tiller would be moved to starboard. I would also assert that the tiller is not the rudder. They are both rigid components fastened to each other, but the word tiller and the word rudder refer to different components of that one system.
Combine the number 7 with a lower case b so that the vertical bar on the 7 is also the vertical bar on the b. Thats the system. The horizontal bar of the 7 is the tiller, and the loop of the b is the rudder. The vertical bar is the axis around which they pivot. When the tiller pivots to the right, the rudder pivots to the left.
So yes, To turn a ship to port, the tiller would be moved to starboard. Moving (pivoting) the tiller to starboard would cause the rudder to move (pivot) to port. And with the rudder moved to port, there would be more drag on the port side of the ship. The starboard side would move through the water faster than the port side, which would cause the ship to turn to port.
Going back to your statement, Turning the rudder right makes the ship turn left. That would be correct if you are thinking of the tiller, which is what your website is discussing, and you are referring to the tiller as the rudder. As I said, that would put us on the same page. Wed just be using the same word in a different manner.
And as evidence that this is how you are using the word, let me quote from your first post.
//In those days when an officer orders "Hard-a-starboard" he means he wants the 'rudder' to move to starboard, not the wheel.//
Compare that to what your website says.
//The officer was ordering the helmsman to perform a particular task (moving the tiller to starboard)//
I realize you didn't author the statement on the website. Or at least I assume you didn't. But you did endorse the position it takes, and so it's fair to treat it as if it came from you. And by comparing the two statements it looks like the words rudder and tiller are being used interchangeably to describe the same thing.
But to get back to the original point, if Murdoch wanted the ship to turn left, which way would Hitchens have to turn the wheel? Let me quote you one more time.
//So when Murdoch ordered "Hard-a-starboard" he wanted the rudder to turn right which means Hichens (sic) had to turn the wheel left because turning the wheel left makes the rudder turn right. It may sound confusing today but in those days it was common procedure. This command structure didn't change until the 1930's. In the 1930's if you wanted to turn left, you would order the wheel left, not the rudder, but in 1912 you would order the rudder right to make the ship turn left.//
Maybe we can cut out the confusion by condensing that statement a little.
//because turning the wheel left makes the rudder turn rightbut in 1912 you would order the rudder right to make the ship turn left.//
Or to simplify it even further.
//turning the wheel left makesthe ship turn left.//
Then what exactly changed in the 1930s? You said:
//This command structure didn't change until th -
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(December 01, 2011 03:05 AM)
James Cameron said he did it historically correct. You can see his little speech in this video at 3:00
Survivors saw the stern move away from the iceberg as it passed by the ship, which means the second helm order was to turn the ship right and quickly swing the stern away. Quartermaster Olliver went on the bridge just as the iceberg struck and he heard the officer yell out "Hard-a-port" which means turn right. That would explain how the stern swung away and avoided hitting the iceberg as it passed.
2nd officer Lightoller said what happened at 6:00 in this interview. -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(December 01, 2011 02:20 PM)
I appreciate the two references. They do shed some light on the present discussion.
First I will address the matter of the sequence of commands Murdoch gave. My original point was that the record shows that Murdochs reaction to the iceberg was to give the command, Hard-astarboard. I then tried to analyze what a command to hard-astarboard would mean to the movement of the ship.
Both the sources you cite, Cameron and Lightoller, state that Murdoch did indeed give the command Hard-astarboard. The fact that Murdoch gave the command Hard-astarboard does not preclude the possibility that he then gave the command, Hard aport shortly afterward. I never took the position that he did not give that command. I did not discuss that point at all as it was not germane to the things I was talking about.
However, if it is your goal to convince me that Murdoch most certainly did give the command Hard-aport subsequent to giving the command Hard-astarboard then you have succeeded. Here is Lightollers statement in the interview you referred me to.
//Murdochshouted Hard-astarboard. Full speed astern. His idea was to swing her bow clear and then put the helm hard over the other way, and so swing her stern clear.//
Secondly I will address the matter of Camerons statement that he did it historically correct. To make sure I do not misrepresent what he said, Im going to quote him in full.
//He (Murdoch) would have run in and yelled, probably at the top of his lungs, at least I would have, Hard-astarboard Hitchens says Hard-astarboard, aye, and he starts cranking that big old ships wheel over, and boy its many, many turns. It was a lot of hard work for him to get that rudder hard over. And you know, seconds counted so much. And you know, Murdoch looked out front and saw an iceberg right square in their path, and he had to decide, Do I go left or do I go right, you know. And its not clear whether any decision would have been the right one at that point.
When we were making the movie I had a choice to make. I could do it historically correctly or I could do what people would think was correct. In fact it was historically correct for a hard-astarboard order to the helmsman to turn the ship to port to the left. That was just the way it was in those days. They were called tiller commands. And by starboarding the tiller you ported the rudder and you turned to port. So the hard-astarboard command actually turned the ship to port.
So a lot of people thought they were pretty nautical and sent me a lot of letters. You can stop sending the letters. Im trying to set the record straight right now. We did it right.//
Clearly when Cameron said, We did it right, he was talking about the command Murdoch gave. If I might paraphrase his line of thought it goes like this.
Historically Murdoch said Hard-astarboard (hard right). But the ship turned left, and people are going to see it turning left in my movie. And people are going to be thinking that since the ship turned left, then Murdoch would have to have said, Hard-aport (hard left). But in fact back then you had to give the command Hard-astarboard (hard right) in order to turn the ship left. So thats the way we showed it in the movie and we did it historically accurately.
What Cameron was not talking about was the question, which way do you turn the wheel when the command is hard-astarboard. In fact theres no indication in his statement that he was even aware of that issue.
So in all these sources weve referred to, does anybody address that actual question? The question of which way do you turn the wheel to turn the ship to left.
The first website you referred to doesnt. It talks about which way you turn the tiller to turn the ship, but it says nothing about which way you turn the wheel to turn the tiller.
Cameron doesnt. His discussion is entirely about how the command hard-astarboard results in the ship turning left. He says nothing about which way the wheel must be turned when the command hard-astarboard is given.
Lightoller doesnt. He simply says that Murdoch tried to swing the bow clear and then swing the stern clear. He says nothing about which way the wheel would be turned in order to do this.
Only Walter Lord addresses the actual question. He says you had to turn the wheel one way in order to turn the ship the other way.
Youve gone to some pretty good sources of information. But looking at your own statement, So when Murdoch ordered Hard-a-starboard he wanted the rudder (tiller?) to turn right which means Hichens had to turn the wheel left because turning the wheel left makes the rudder (tiller?) turn right. And in particular when you say because turning the wheel left makes the rudder (tiller?) turn right I think youre assuming something about the movement of the wheel that none of your sources say. Ive seen nothing in any of those sources that would support such an assumption. -
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(December 01, 2011 03:14 PM)
You might like this link, but I personally don't believe this. Do you? There are dozens of comments underneath it which are worth reading as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/8016752/Titanic-sunk -by-steering-blunder-new-book-claims.html -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(December 02, 2011 01:41 PM)
I read the news items on it when it first came out, and I just didnt see anything convincing in the claims being made. Since then I havent given much thought to the matter.
Im not an expert on the Titanic, and Im certainly not a researcher. Im interested in the Titanic story, and have read many of the books and articles on the subject. So Ive been exposed to the work of those who have researched it and are considered to be experts. Beyond that I can simply form my own opinions, based on what Ive read.
The claim was that two things, previously unreported, actually happened. One: Murdoch wanted to turn the ship left, but Hitchens accidentally turned right. And they had to correct the error and turn back to left. Two: They resumed steaming after the collision.
Based on the information Ive seen presented in the many accounts of the disaster that Ive read, I find faults with both points.
One: According to the accounts of many witnesses the collision occurred only a few seconds after the iceberg warning. Murdochs statement to Captain Smith immediately after the collision was that he tried to port around but it was too close. In my first post in this thread I tried to analyze that statement. I concluded that Murdoch intended to turn left, that he gave Hitchens the correct order to turn left, and Hitchens carried out the order correctly. If the information we have from the testimony of the several witnesses to these events is accurate, then I stand by that conclusion. I just see no hint of evidence from the testimony we have that Titanic was two miles from the iceberg when they started to take evasive action, or that they turned right, then left, then finally right.
Two: According to the accounts Ive read, when Titanic was stopped and sinking, and finally sunk, her bow was pointed a little to the east of north. To me that makes perfect sense if Captain Smith stopped the ship immediately after the collision, as the traditional accounts have told us. But I cant make any sense of it at all if Titanic resumed steaming.
Going by the traditional account. Titanic was steaming west when the iceberg was sighted. Murdoch turned left and then right. And then Smith stopped the ship. So the last order to Hitchens was hard-aport. This would turn the ship right, and it would continue to turn right until Smith stopped it. And if it ended up pointing east of north, thats quite understandable.
But if they resumed steaming they would have had to set a course. That would be the course they were on when they eventually stopped the ship. So I then ask, why would they be steering east of north? It doesnt make sense to me.
So, no, Ive never bought in to this explanation. -
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(December 02, 2011 03:55 PM)
Hichens was asked what he did before the collision, but he was never asked what helm orders he did after or during the collision. He was given the order 'Hard aport' immediately after the iceberg passed the bridge.
Quarter master Olliver arrived on the bridge at that moment. This is what he told the inquiry:
"The orders I heard when I was on the bridge was after we had struck the iceberg. I heard hard aport, and there was the man at the wheel and the officer. The officer was seeing it was carried out right."
Q - What officer was it?
A - Mr. Moody, the sixth officer, was stationed in the wheelhouse.
Q - Who was the man at the wheel?
A - Hichens, quartermaster.
Q - You do not know whether the helm was put hard astarboard first, or not?
A - No, sir; I do not know that.
Q - But you know it was put hard aport after you got there?
A - After I got there; yes, sir.
Q - Where was the iceberg, do you think, when the helm was shifted?
A - The iceberg was away up stern.
Q - That is when the order "hard aport" was given?
A - That is when the order "hard aport" was given; yes, sir.
Q - Who gave the order?
A - The first officer.
Q - And that order was immediately executed, was it?
A - Immediately executed, and the sixth officer saw that it was carried out.
After Titanic stopped she went ahead again. Many survivors felt the ship moving again and thought everything was OK. Two survivors in the engine room also testified that the ship moved ahead after the collision for about 10 minutes and then stopped a second time. Quarter master Olliver said:
"She went ahead, after she struck; she went half speed ahead."
Q - The engines went half speed ahead, or the ship?
A - Half speed ahead, after she hit the ice.
Q - Who gave the order?
A - The captain telegraphed half speed ahead.
I think the Titanic was around 2 miles away when they first saw the iceberg because survivor Joseph Scarrott was at the bow and during the inquiry he was asked how much time was there between the ringing of the bell and the collision. He said: "about five or eight minutes". That means the Titanic must have been far away.
The lookout Frederick Fleet dodged the question. Either White Star told him to say nothing or he was deliberately acting dumb. This is what he told the inquiry.
Q - How long before the collision or accident did you report ice ahead?
A - I have no idea.
Q - About how long?
A - I could not say, at the rate she was going.
Q - How fast was she going?
A - I have no idea.
Q - Would you be willing to say that you reported the presence of this iceberg an hour before the collision?
A - No, sir.
Q - Forty-five minutes?
A - No. sir.
Q - A half hour before?
A - No, sir.
Q - Fifteen minutes before?
A - No, sir.
Q - Ten minutes before?
A - No, sir.
Q - How far away was this black mass when you first saw it?
A - I have no idea, sir.
That is a terrible answer. If it was less than a minute away then why did he not say so? The other lookout Reginald Lee also dodged the question. He said he could not see anything ahead because there was a thick haze lying in front of the ship which blocked his view from seeing anything up ahead, but everyone else said it was a clear night, and it was so clear you could see the stars rising and setting on the horizon.
Lookout Frederick Fleet said he picked up the telephone and got a quick response from the bridge but when he was in the lifeboat he told a passenger that nobody answered the telephone. 2nd officer Lightoller was asked why nobody picked up the telephone and he said it was only a formality and nobody had to answer it. -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(December 03, 2011 04:56 AM)
It's interesting to examine source material such as transcripts of testimony at the official inquiries.
It's also possible to get into a passionate analysis of the plausibility of what was said. Just because someone was present at an event does not guarantee that his description of the event must necessarily be one hundred percent accurate.
Did people remember what actually happened, or were they remembering their perception of what happened? It's possible for people to emphatically believe they observed a certain thing when in fact they are mistaken about what they saw.
These are the kinds of questions that can be raised. And I suppose that is one of the reasons why even a century later there are so many conflicting opinions as to what happened that night.
Here's something that has influenced my viewpoint. Although I can't answer to any other person's capabilities, I'm pretty sure that I myself have never had the ability to see an unlighted object that was two miles distant in the middle of the night. -
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(December 03, 2011 12:00 PM)
I think the stars would have reflected off the icebergs and made them much easier to spot. The wireless operator on the Parisian saw the icefield and many icebergs that night and he said the stars reflected off them and made them glow a bright green. He thought it was beautiful. Titanic survivors could see the icefield that night, but they thought it was the Northern lights (a bright green colour above the horizon.)
Survivor Major Peuchen said: "The Northern lights were very strong that night. It might have been some reflection on ice."
The Californian was stuck in the middle of this icefield and one of their crew said they could see the edge of the icefield 4 miles away. So the ice must have been been visible at a great distance.
I believe the Titanic was around 2 minutes away from the iceberg when they first saw it, but many people today think it was just 37 seconds. The simple reason is, Hichens told the inquiry the Titanic turned 2 points on the helm when the iceberg hit. A test was done on the Olympic afterwards to see how long this took and it was 37 seconds. I believe this test should be ignored because the Olympic was going full ahead the entire time. Titanic wasn't. The Titanic was moving full speed astern and researchers have often stated that reversing the engines would make her rudder less effective and it would take much longer for her to turn 2 points.
There is one important issue that I find very interesting. 4th officer Boxhall told the inquiry that both engines were put in reverse, but in a 1952 interview he said it was only the port engine that was put in reverse, not both. Reversing the port engine would make the Titanic turn alot faster and would have made more sense. -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(December 04, 2011 05:31 AM)
Looks like the eye witnesses were all over the place on this subject.
The wireless operator on the Parisian said the stars reflected off the icebergs and made them glow a bright green.
Titanic survivors could see the ice field that night, but they thought it was the Northern lights
Major Peuchen said there might have been some reflection on ice."
One of the Californians crew said they could see the edge of the ice field four miles away.
But before we conclude that the ice must have been visible at a great distance, perhaps we should remember that the jury is expected to hear both sides before reaching a verdict.
And weighing in for the opposition is eye witness Charles H. Lightoller. I went back to that interview, the one you referenced a few posts back, and copied three statements he made.
Statement 1, beginning at 1:57 in the recording.
//From the moment we left Belfast we had marvelous weather. And even when we got out on the Western Ocean, or Atlantic as you probably know it, it was as smooth as the proverbial mill pond. Not a breath of wind and the sea like a sheet of glass. In any other circumstances those conditions would have been ideal. But anyone with experience of ice at sea knows that those very conditions, and the moonless night, only render the detection of icebergs all the more difficult and calls for additional alertness on the part of both officers and men.//
Statement 2, beginning at 3:13 in the recording.
//Now throughout the day there had been the usual wireless messages from different ships reporting the weather, odd icebergs, and so forth, but as none of these bergs reported lay on our course, well they didnt directly concern us. But when the evidence came to be sifted out at the inquiry held in London afterwards it then came out that one very vital message received in the Titanics wireless room that night had never been delivered to the bridge. That message came from a ship called the Mesaba, warning all ships of heavy pack ice, icebergs and field ice in an area then lying right ahead of the Titanic, and what was still worse not far away. Those immense quantities of ice were abnormal for almost any time of the year and the significance we should have attached to that report can hardly be exaggerated. In my opinion it was a warning of the most vital importance. You see, I was officer of the watch and in charge of the ship when that Mesaba message came over and I know perfectly well what I should have done if it had come to my hand. Without a shadow of doubt I should have slowed her down at once, that would have been imperative, and sent for the captain. More than likely, in fact almost certainly, he would have stopped the ship altogether and waited for daylight to feel his way through. Anyhow, the long and short of it is neither he nor I nor any other officer of the ship got that message.//
Statement 3, beginning at 5:03 in the recording.
//At ten oclock I was relieved as officer of the watch by Murdoch, W. M. Murdoch. He and I had been shipmates in many of the ocean greyhounds, and both of us had crossed this ice region times without number, both in clear weather and whats more in fog.//
The significance of statement 1 is: Lightoller said the conditions that night make it more difficult to detect icebergs.
The significance of statement 2 is: Neither Lightoller or any other experienced officer would have needed the Mesaba warning if they could have seen the ice for themselves in time to take the imperative action of slowing down and even stopping the ship.
The significance of statement 3 is: Murdoch was just as experienced as Lightoller.
One thing we can all agree on is that they did hit the iceberg. So from that indisputable fact I would suppose that they must have had some kind of problem with seeing it.
//I believe this test should be ignored because the Olympic was going full ahead the entire time. Titanic wasn't. The Titanic was moving full speed astern//
It would be impossible to exactly duplicate the maneuver the Titanic made that night, and of course that should be taken into account. Im not sure this would mean that the test with the Olympic would have no validity at all.
But I am sure that Titanic was not moving full speed astern. The order had been given by the bridge to the engine room. I dont doubt that the Cameron movie is correct in depicting frantic and desperate activity to get the engines reversed. I dont know how far along they were at the moment of contact with the iceberg with the process of transitioning from moving through the water in a forward direction to moving through the water in a reverse direction.
But if they had managed to be moving full speed astern before that instant of contact they would have avoided the collision altogether, as they would now be backing away from the iceberg and increasing the distance between them with every passing moment. Since they didnt avoid the collision the ship must have been moving in a forward direction during the entire -
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(December 04, 2011 07:27 AM)
When a ship is put in reverse it will still move forward a very long distance before it comes to a halt and starts to go back. They did this test on the Olympic to see how long it took to stop her with a full astern order. This is what the inquiry said:
"Both engines were running at about 60 revolutions, corresponding to a speed of about 18 knots. The helm was left amidships and both engines were reversed. The way was off the ship in about three minutes and 15 seconds from the order to reverse engines being given, and the distance run was just over 3,000 feet. I might mention in that connection that, so far as we on the bridge could see, the engines were not reversed as quickly as we had seen them, and the distance is probably a little on the large side; but that is what we actually observed, and it would be very difficult to put an estimated correction on it."
Lookout Reginald Lee thought the iceberg was half a mile away when he first saw it. Half a mile is 2,640 feet. So if it took 3,000 feet to stop her by reversing the propellers, they clearly had every good reason to try it, sadly it wasn't enough and they hit the iceberg before they could stop completely. Think of a train track and a steam train racing at high speed. The bridge ahead has collapsed, so they suddenly put the train in reverse. The wheels will frantically spin in reverse but the train will keep on sliding forward for a very long time and sadly the train crashes. It was the same with the Titanic.
It took 3 minutes and 15 seconds on the Olympic but they admitted they could have done it quicker. 2nd officer Lightoller said it could be done in less than 2 minutes.
One thing that really fascinates me is if the port engine was the only one reversed because I am finding more and more evidence which suggests it was.- Boxhall said in 1952 it was just the port engine.
- Lightoller told the inquiry that Murdoch was on the Titanic during her sea trials and one of the tests was to reverse the port engine and see how fast the ship could turn in an emergency.
- A news reporter interviewed survivors who refused to give their names as they got off the Carpathia and one of them told him the port engine was reversed.
- The Captain of the Californian was asked what he would do if he was the Captain of the Titanic.
This is what he said:
Q - There were two engines, a starboard engine and a port engine on the Titanic. Suppose you sent the message, Starboard engine ahead; port engine reverse, what effect would that have on the steamer?
A - It would twist her head to port.
Q - Would it be likely to get rid of the berg quickly?
A - Oh, yes, to get away from it; that would be the idea of stopping the port engine or reversing it.
Q - Reverse the port and keep ahead with the starboard?
A - That would twist it quicker.
Q - At once?
A - Very quickly.
Q - That would be the quickest way of altering the course of the steamer?
A - I should think so.
-
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(December 04, 2011 02:03 PM)
Yes, there are many tests that could be conducted and a lot of empirical data collected. It's possible the collision could have been avoided if the optimum action had been taken.
Unfortunately for the Titanic, nobody had anticipated and studied this kind of situation. And starting at square one as they did when the iceberg warning was sounded, they weren't likly to figure it all out in the next couple of minutes. -
Jazzomaniac — 14 years ago(December 04, 2011 04:57 PM)
They did all kinds of engine and helm tests during Titanic's sea trials a few days before she left on her maiden voyage. The officers would have been trained how to handle the ship in an emergency situation and they would have understood how fast or slow she could react. This photo was taken on the Titanic. She is turning very sharply and making an 'S' shape in the water. I wonder if Murdoch was on the bridge and yelling "hard aport"."hard astarboard"."hard aport".. again and again when this photo was taken.
http://titanic-model.com/db/graphics/rm-db-2/rm-db-2-turning.jpg -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(December 05, 2011 04:50 PM)
Sometimes theres a difference between theory and reality.
State of the art ship design. All kinds of engine and helm tests. All the officers trained and certified.
So in theory they were prepared for anything. In reality the ship sank. -
TorontoJediMaster — 14 years ago(December 27, 2011 01:10 PM)
Another point to remember is that the officers were trained and certified in ships only a fraction of the size of
Titanic
. Until less than a year before, when Captain Smith, Wilde and Murdoch were all on the
Olympic
, the largest ship any of them had served on was maybe half that size.
I suspect they didn't appreciate the fact that dodging ice was different in a ship so much larger.
As for the OP, I think that Murdoch's intent was to swing the ship to port around the ice. He did as follows:
-Ordered hard-a-starboard. Hitchens turned the wheel to port, as was the method in 1912. That would've turned the ship to starboard.
-Reversed the engines. That resulted in the ship actually turning to port.
-He said he was going to hard-a-port around it. That meant, he was going to put the wheel in the opposite direction, to swing the stern of the ship away from the berg. -
deeveed — 14 years ago(February 06, 2012 07:57 AM)
Good discussionany hypothetiticals on if Titanic did not turn but hit the berg say dead on? Worse or better? I also read that Smith after hitting the berg, increased speed. Arguably that perhaps quickened the time/sec of more water flowing into the stricken ship.
-
TheGuyWithTheFeet — 14 years ago(February 06, 2012 08:56 AM)
Human nature is to try to avoid hitting something. In a car accident, do you just hit something head on or do you do whatever you can to avoid it?
If he just went straight on and hit the berg, the damage would have been inevitable. Trying to miss it, at least they had a chance and almost made ithitting it only by a matter of feet or even inches.
Had they hit the berg, it would have greatly damaged the ship, the ship would have flooded quickly (in minutes rather than hours it took), it would have injured and killed more people on impact and there would have been a higher loss of life. They barely got all of the boats launched as it is and they had 2.5 hours.
