What Was Murdoch Trying To Do?
-
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. -
Cairo-5 — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 02:12 AM)
My skepticism was completely reasonable. I invited comment on an interesting issue, but was not obligated to blindly accept seemingly nonsensical statements.
The issue was technical as to how the individual components of the navigational system work together. Initially the other poster and I were using the same words to refer to different things. We were each correct in what we were stating but simply expressing it in different ways, which gave the appearance of a disagreement that wasn't really there. By conducting a polite discussion we quickly resolved the matter.
Politeness. That's a quality you would benefit from acquiring.
It's easier to be an individual than a god.
-
Cybersharp — 14 years ago(February 07, 2012 06:57 PM)
Theres really no good place to insert this response, so Ill just stick it here.
The conversation seemed to have gotten waylaid by the differences in directives and procedures between White Stars rudder commands and modern terminology. The real issue was what was Murdochs intention and how well was it executed.
Lets start with exactly what a port around is, using todays terminology and what the logical sequence would be, based on the accounts of many later ships captains. First, the sequence of commands would be: Hard to port - all stop - hard to starboard and then a reverse. if a last correction is needed.
The idea is to turn the ships head to port, allowing the head to reach a point well past the object to be avoided; then stop engines and make a determination of the exact instant to turn the head back to starboard and allow the wash and inertia of the ship to bring the head back while swinging the stern out of the way. The last possible correction would be a reverse with the appropriate steering necessary to alter the effects of the earlier maneuvers. Since this is a long accepted procedure, and since there is some evidence which indicates that Murdoch himself had used it earlier in his career, we need to offer some reliable evidence that this was not what was carried out during this incident.
This is what we seem to have on both sides of the issue.- The testimony of two men, who seem to be trying to reinforce their earlier statements regarding a conversation between two other officers who did not survive the incident.
- The testimony of one man who recounts the series of commands, when it seems almost humanly impossible to do so retrospectively.
- The testimony of someone in engineering who seems to come very close to supporting the sequence of commands commonly associated with a simple port around procedure.
Testimony can be couched in such a way as to elicit a response which is in agreement with the opinion of the questioner. Note that in the series of questions associated with Californians captain, the questioning stops when the desired answers are gotten. The series of questions does not acknowledge the fact that there is a significant difference between a command and execution. The questions raise a hypothetical scenario, but do not go on to the pragmatic limitations and risks of actually attempting such a procedure in real time, under actual emergency conditions. Poor timing in the execution of engine reversal would possibly lead to complete disaster, and certainly undermine the effects of the steering maneuvers, which would certainly be the prime focus of the person having to make split second decisions.
My own conclusions, based on everything Ive read from a wide variety of sources is:
1.The iceberg was spotted somewhere between 3 and 3 and one half minutes before the Titanic struck it. - Murdoch attempted a simple port around procedure.
- The Titanic was never aimed directly at the iceberg, and Murdochs maneuver, while being well executed, had relatively minimal effect on the positioning of the ship when it actually impacted.
I also think that Frederick Fleet is the lost soul in the mix. It is commonly thought that his muddled testimony is the product of pressure being applied by White Star. I believe in a odd way, it may have been just the opposite. He refused to be pressured into repeating White Stars lies under oath, but he also knew that he could not refute the testimony of others (safely) so he came up with his series of non-answers, knowing that it would not influence the balance either way. He was right.
.
-
Petronius Arbiter II — 13 years ago(April 11, 2012 10:39 PM)
"State of the art ship design."
Really? Hull made out of cheap thin steel? "Water-tight compartments" that weren't really water-tight, because the bulkheads separating them didn't go all the way to the top? Not nearly enough lifeboats for the number of passengers and crew Titanic carried?
Was this
really
state-of-the-art design at the time? If so, then every last ship that plied the North Atlantic during iceberg season was a potential disaster waiting to happen. But I'm having a hard time believing that the thinness of the hull, or the cheap fragile steel, was even part of the design, could it have been that White Star ordered that as a cost-cutting measure
after
the blueprints were drawn up?
I still have a hard time getting over those so-called water-tight compartments. Couldn't the designers have been bright enough to figure out that once a compartment filled up, the water would just spill over into the next compartment, and the next one after that, and so on? If the bulkheads had gone all the way to deck above, the Titanic probably would never have sunk.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
chimaera1249 — 13 years ago(April 12, 2012 04:55 AM)
White Star didn't really have input on the materials. Harland and Wolff used the same steel they used on other ships, including
Olympic
, which had a fine career. It wasn't fragile, and was perfectly acceptable for the time.
The bulkheads
were
watertight and did work. When
Olympic
was hit by the
Hawke
in 1911, two compartements were opened and flooded, yet she was able to get back to port to offload and get some quick repairs and then get back to Belfast for complete repairs. All the compartments went up past the water line, D-Deck at the bow and stern, and E-Deck amidship. Based on the ship's floodable length calculations, this was enough, for up to the first 4 compartments, or any two (for an excellent article about this: see
http://www.titanicology.com/FloodingByCompartment.html
). In a incident in the allowed conditions, the compartments would flood to the waterline, where the pressure would equalize and the ship would stop flooding. In the disaster, the damage was just more than the design could withstand, and water pulled the ship down to the point where water could enter in the ship through non-watertight areas. By the way, the bulkheads
did
extend the deck above, they didn't just stop in beween decks.
