W.T. Stead On The Titanic- Myths Vs. Facts

[Mayerling]

I am putting this here and on the RMS Titanic thread as well. While "googling" last Friday I found there is a new biography on Ismay (which is about time). It is entitled: The Sinking of J. Bruce Ismay.

[Adam Went]

Hi Jeff,

Yes indeed, perhaps I should have worded it a bit differently but I did mean the last Holmes NOVEL was published soon afterwards, not his final Holmes story altogether.

The truth is though that Doyle never was particularly fond of Holmes, he felt that his popularity kept Doyle's more serious and personally favourite works out of the spotlight and lacking the recognition they deserved. Many of his Holmes stories, especially the second series of short stories in the early 1890's, were written solely because his publishers were offering him obscene amounts of money to write more of them. People cried in the streets when he killed him off on the Reichenbach Falls, it was like the Victorian era version of "Who Shot J.R.?" !!

Much of his later work was also overshadowed by his spiritualistic sentiments.

Cheers,
Adam.

P.S. You mentioned Morgan Robertson - he died some years later in almost total obscurity, having failed to be successful in his other writing endeavours. Huge shame for a man of such obvious talent.

[Mayerling]

Hi Adam,

Doyle actually kept writing Holmes stories until 1927 (the last one is THE ADVENTURE OF SHOSCOMBE OLD PLACE which is in the series of tales called THE CASEBOOK OF SHERLOCK HOLMES). He also wrote the last Holmes novel, THE VALLEY OF FEAR in 1914. However his interest in spiritualism would soon become dominant. His last Professor Challenger tale, THE LAND OF MIST, was written in the 1920s, and deals with the occult. It is also the least republished or liked of the Challenger tales (two novels and three short stories as well as THE LAND OF MIST). There was also his "Atlantis" / Jules Verne submarine novel, THE MARICOT DEEP, written in 1925.

But Titanic must have weighed on Doyle's mind because he was soon studying on ship building and its present limitations. The result apeared in 1913 in a short story he wrote that showed that Morgan Robinson was not the only man to predict fatal naval disasters. The story DANGER! is Doyle's attempt to get the British public to be aware of submarine warfare. Although Germany is not named as the enemy in the story, a European land state has a fleet of subs under Captain John Serius. He uses them to put England under a powerful blockade from getting foreign good that are needed. At the tale end of the story, Serius shows how much business he means when he attacks and torpedoes (and sinks) a four smokestack super liner outside Liverpool! No it is not the "Lucy" nor any other Cunarder, but a White Star liner.

The public liked the story. The Admiralty ignored it (to it's cost). The Germans listed Doyle as being remarkably prescient.

Jeff

[Adam Went]

Errata:

I understand where you're coming from but of all this is with the benefit of hindsight and modern science, at 11.40 pm on April 14, 1912, First Officer Murdoch had to make a snap decision there and then, and the training then was always that if an attempt could be made to avoid an object, then it should be done - especially if the ship you're commanding is the pride of the White Star Line on her maiden voyage with some of the richest and most powerful people in the world on board.

Think of it like this: If she had rammed the iceberg head on, it would have caused untold damage to the front of the ship and instantly killed anyone who was in the bow section. The huge shudder would have thrown people and objects all over the place and parts of the ship may have squashed like an accordion from the impact. If she had been successful in splitting through the iceberg, bits of ice would have scraped both sides of the ship as she went through as well as underneath.

The damage to the bow would also have included the boiler rooms, meaning that in all likelihood there would have been no power, or at least very much decreased power, and then problems for running the lights and electricity and more importantly, operating the wireless to call for assistance.

Whatever the scenario, there is no way that she would have been able to continue sailing on under her own steam.

So, what ship, in 1912, is going to be able to tow the Titanic home? Are they going to float in a crushed ship for a few days whilst tugboats come out from New York? What if a storm comes and causes more damage to the ship? Could she have stayed afloat permanently or would it simply have slowed the sinking?

The only other ship capable of towing a ship the size of the Titanic would have been her sister, the Olympic, who was 500 miles away at the time. And she can't call for help anyway because there's no wireless, so she floats aimlessly and with severe damage until daylight when, hopefully, she gets spotted by a ship like the Californian.

And all the while, it would have been an absolute killer blow to the WSL even if, by virtue of some miracle, she limped into NYC in that condition.

No.....hindsight allows us many benefits but Murdoch made the right decision by trying to avoid the iceberg.

Jeff:

A good point you bring up, about the debate between George Bernard Shaw and Arthur Conan Doyle. It was quite brief but it made up in harshness what it lacked in longevity. It wasn't long afterwards when Doyle published his final Sherlock Holmes novel and started becoming a spiritualist....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Errata]

Hi Errata, Louise, and Adam,

Discussions of how it was ashame that Titanic had not rammed the iceberg head on instead of sideswiping it annoyed him. My quote in the "Title" box is similar to what he wrote. He pointed out the sizeable damage any contact with an iceberg causes, and he said basically that it would not have helped the ship or the passengers and crew if the ship hit the iceberg head on at full speed. Same result - massive, fatal damage, and sinking. As I said, nobody Doyle came around to question Captain Conrad.

To be fair, I don't particularly think that a head on collision would have saved the ship. It's mathematically possible, but I think the congruence of events would have overwhelmed any positive possibilities. But I stand by the statement that they should have rammed the iceberg rather than sideswiped it. I just don't think that potentially losing half of the lifeboats on the off chance of missing the floe is a responsible choice. And it easily could have happened. Forward damage preserves the function of lifeboats, where side damage can eliminate the function of lifeboats. I figure if either way the boat sinks in 3 hours, then take the way that doesn't compromise the sole method of survival.

Louisa: Point on the bus driver. He should not act out of self preservation, but probably does. On the other hand, buses are slower and have exits on five of the six sides, so unlike a pilot they have some room for error.

[Mayerling]

"When in doubt, ram hard!"

Hi Errata, Louise, and Adam,

At the time of the immediate aftermath of the disaster in 1912, naturally it attracted literary interest. George Bernard Shaw had once worked for Stead, who just did not know what to do with him. Shaw hated the fact he became (briefly) a book reviewer (later he would be happier elsewhere as a theater and music critic, and (of course) an avuncular dramatist for his time). He and Arthur Conan Doyle got into a brief literary squabble in the newspapers regarding the truth about the disaster (Shaw's point)and the heroism in the Victims and most of the survivors (Doyle's point) No one really won the debate, but it set the points for future discussions.

Another literary man who definitely had his point of view was Joseph Conrad.
Although Doyle had worked on a whaler in the 1880s as a doctor, neither he nor Shaw were seaman. Conrad, of course, had a master's certification, which is one of the reasons his books like THE END OF THE TETHER and LORD JIM (the latter based on an actual naval incident) ring so true (like Melville's in an earlier period).

Conrad was closer to Shaw in sticking to "just the facts, Ma'am". Like Shaw he deplored the lack of sense shown in the handling of Titanic by its crew (especially Captain Smith). But since he knew what he was talking about nobody like Doyle criticized him. One point he vaporized (or, at least , I though so). Discussions of how it was ashame that Titanic had not rammed the iceberg head on instead of sideswiping it annoyed him. My quote in the "Title" box is similar to what he wrote. He pointed out the sizeable damage any contact with an iceberg causes, and he said basically that it would not have helped the ship or the passengers and crew if the ship hit the iceberg head on at full speed. Same result - massive, fatal damage, and sinking. As I said, nobody Doyle came around to question Captain Conrad.

But side collisons are faster. In 1893, HMS Victoria was rammed in a peculiarly stupid set of maneuvers (spoofed in KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS) by HMS Camperdown. It sank in about ten minutes kiliing 323 sailors and officers including Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon. I believe it remains holding the dubious distinction of being the worst peacetime disaster in the history of the British navy.

Jeff

[louisa]

"even a bus driver cannot react in a reflexive self interest. Their thoughts have to be about maximizing the survival of their passengers"

I think you may be wrong here. A bus driver would (I would imagine) avoid a head on collision at any cost. He's at the front of the bus after all.

In a potential crash situation surely there wouldn't be enough to time for a bus driver to cogitate about which method is best for the survival of his passengers. We're not talking about highly trained pilots here - but bus drivers - trained to drive buses and nothing more.

[Errata]

That's all very good in theory but I would have thought that the avoidance of a head on collision was a natural human reaction? After all, there is always the chance - however remote - that you will be able to dodge the oncoming obstacle/car. If someone chooses the 'head on' approach then the only certainty is that there will be a nasty crash.

True enough, and thats why you have to train the reflex out if you are going to do the bodyguard thing. But a ship is not a car, and it requires a command or two relayed through different parts of the ship in order for the guy at the wheel to make a turn. Chain of command trumps reflex. It's how the military can order people to do things against their own best interest. So it's not so much guy at the wheel seeing the iceberg and reflexively jerking the wheel. It's information that went through a couple of people, any of whom could have invoked my fictional "just ram it" rule.

I don't think it would be easy, and I certainly think any captain who makes a decision that ends in the sinking of a ship is going to second guess it for the rest of his life, and others will do it for him after his death. But a ship's captain, a train conductor, a pilot, even a bus driver cannot react in a reflexive self interest. Their thoughts have to be about maximizing the survival of their passengers. Pilots are incredibly well trained in this. It's why they never ditch in the water unless there is no other choice. The odds of passengers getting out of a plane after a water landing is incredibly remote. It's also why they tend not to survive crashes.

And I realize that was then and this is now, and things were different. But a lot of these guys were Navy, including the captain, and I just would have thought that the sort of analytical attitude should have prevailed.

[louisa]

That's all very good in theory but I would have thought that the avoidance of a head on collision was a natural human reaction? After all, there is always the chance - however remote - that you will be able to dodge the oncoming obstacle/car. If someone chooses the 'head on' approach then the only certainty is that there will be a nasty crash.

[Errata]

Hey all,

Errata:

Yep, if you have 45,000 tons of ship smacking into an ice wall at high speed, it's going to do some pretty serious damage.

I went to bodyguard school (it was a weird period in my life) and one of the things you have to learn is when to take a collision or when to try and get out of the way. Because if swerving out of the way of a mini cooper puts you in the path of a mack truck, you have made the wrong decision. So we had to ram a lot of things with a car in a lot of different ways. The thing I learned from that whole period is that I would rather take 20 head on collisions rather than one sideswiping.

Firstly (and somewhat unconnected) the human body takes a violent back and forth motion better than it takes a side to side one. Secondly, there is quite a bit of car between you and another car if you hit it head on. There is nothing between you and another car if it hits your side. And most importantly, if you hit someone head on all of your exits are preserved. When you get sideswiped (and this I know the hard way) you are trapped.

Any captain or sailor who chooses to sacrifice the side of a ship rather than the front is an idiot. Lets say nothing could have been done, and no matter how the Titanic hit the iceberg it was going to sink. You preserve the exits. Meaning the lifeboats. Meaning for the most part the sides of the ship. You take out the front of the ship, you maybe lose four lifeboats. You take out a side, and you can lose half of them. Its hard for me today to fathom that there was no rule that said "If you aren't absolutely certain you can avoid it, hit it head on." She might have stayed afloat with only the front compartments flooded, we will never know. But I cannot understand a captain taking a chance on losing half of the lifeboats.

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Errata:

Yep, if you have 45,000 tons of ship smacking into an ice wall at high speed, it's going to do some pretty serious damage. All the passengers would have been woken up and then some. It actually probably would have been similar to the Andrea Doria sinking in 1956 after colliding with the Stockholm, when a huge portion of the casualties died either in or as a result of the initial shock and damage caused by the collision instead of the actual sinking itself. Then again, AD took 11 hours to sink, not 2.5.....

The simple fact is that the sheer size of the Titanic meant that by the time the message of the ice was comprehended, relayed to the bridge and then a decision was made on what to do, that much more distance had been travelled at 20 odd knots that any glimmer of hope there might have initially been of avoiding the berg were all but dashed......she did turn, just not enough.

Jeff:

18 minutes of chaos for the Lusitania.....I agree with you though, there's any number of explanations for why she sank so fast, and sadly because of the way she lies and the condition she is in on the ocean floor now, it's impossible to tell just what damage was done to what parts of the ship at the time.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

Thanks Ben for naming that unfortunate Mr. Wright. For him and all the others (like Ms Isham) who may have been stuck below deck, it must have been a horrendous nightmare moment at the end.

Adam I saw that test with the model Titanic. It was a curiosity, and I'm not sure it really proved anything. I think it was A. A. Hoehling and Mary Hoehling in their THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE LUSITANIA who suggested that the rapidity of the sinking may have been due to the ship's watertightness.
But actually there are other valid explanations for the "Lucy"'s sinking so fast. The torpedo may have caused a large amount of internal damage due to coal dust or hitting a boiler. Also, as the trip was approaching it's end, many lower deck portholes were opened to allow sea air to freshen cabins - and ironically these may have allowed more water to enter the ship as it sank. A similar theory was advanced for the Britannic in 1916, bu it did not sink as fast as the Lusitania.

Jeff

[Errata]

Here's a better BBC article about what Lightoller's grand-daughter, Lady Patten, says she told her about the Titanic's collision. Now I can understand how the helmsman might have accidentally turned the wheel in the opposite direction.

Archaic

It's credible in so far as the sail vs. steam conflict. My mom is a coast guard historian and was telling me about it awhile ago. Evidently the confusion ran quite a few ships aground in the old days.

My problem with the story is that I don't think it particularly washes, timewise. I don't think there is any way the Titanic could have gotten out of the way of the iceberg even if they had steered it correctly. Because of the amount of iceberg that is underwater, the conditions of the sea and weather, no binoculars, etc. by the time they spotted the iceberg it would have been too late. The Titanic didn't have a prayer of missing that thing. I mean, people were getting hit by the ice coming off the floe. If you look at a picture of the berg in question, you can see that in order to remain "upright" the underwater portion of ice has to be at least half again as big as the surface.

I think it's possible that the Titanic was in fact steered away, but after they hit some guy might have had an "oh sh*t" moment and wondered if he had screwed it up. I say this because despite the faulty rivets, there is still a lot of play in the idea that if the Titanic had just rammed the iceberg it would have stayed afloat. Turning into an iceberg with such a significant underportion would essentially be like a car hitting a wall. Even going straight probably would have had the same effect. But turning away would have been a ship long scrape, much like what was described. So I dunno.

But the sail and steam system confusion is true. True in general I mean, I can't say if it happened on the Titanic. But I would think that if it had, and he was the only guy left after the sinking still with White Star who knew about it, he would have made a big stink about it before hopping on the Oceanic. Ismay and Lightoller knew about the error, Ismay resigns, That leaves Lightoller who knows about a potentially catastrophic problem, and he says nothing? I don't care how loyal you are to your employers... you don't come away from a sunk ship and get on another one without making damn sure it doesn't happen again.

[Adam Went]

Louisa:

The scale model was pretty thorough, it was made of clear materials and was divided into the correct watertight compartments with the correct amount of damage the iceberg caused and so on.....I can't remember the name of the docco off the top of my head but will post it up if I do....

ET is the best Titanic website and they also have a forum over there as well - i'm a member there and am always arguing the point with somebody, usually Michael H. Standart. Worth joining if you're a Titanic enthusiast.

Archaic:

Very interesting articles, thanks for that! Seem to remember reading something similar to this before, and like you, i've steered sailboats in which you had to turn the wheel right in order for the boat to turn left, and vice versa.

But given that the iceberg was, as Fred Fleet put it, "dead ahead", would it have made any difference which way they had tried to steer the ship? I think any which way would have caused irrepairable damage, she was such a huge, heavy object that she couldn't be turned or stopped in such a short space of time.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Archaic]

Was There A Change In the Standards of Ship Communications?

Here's a better BBC article about what Lightoller's grand-daughter, Lady Patten, says she told her about the Titanic's collision. Now I can understand how the helmsman might have accidentally turned the wheel in the opposite direction.

BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11390144

And a good one from the Discovery Channel. Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/history/st...ys-author.html

Lady Patten's story sounds perfectly reasonable, but I have to say I wish she wasn't a novelist.

I'm curious as to what the rest of you think about this story- does it sound credible and help explain why the collision occurred? I've steered the rudder of sailboats and know that in order to get the boat where you want to go you have to steer sort of "backwards" to how you'd turn a steering wheel, but did the change in the way maritime communications were given really change so late as c.1912?

That seems odd, as steamships had already been around for decades. Wouldn't the White Star Line have made sure that all crew were well-drilled in responding correctly to orders before they ever set out on a voyage?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic