# Titanic letter warned of 'danger' (BBC News)



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

A letter written at the Titanic's last port of call before it hit an iceberg describes the liner as a "positive danger".

More from BBC News...


----------



## Chris Isaac (Jul 29, 2006)

Bit late to send it now isnt it?


----------



## mikeg (Aug 24, 2006)

Chris Isaac said:


> Bit late to send it now isnt it?


Maybe its only just been delivered. (2nd Class stamp to blame)


----------



## makko (Jul 20, 2006)

No mention of the Sluice Gate Bypass Valves then?

I can feel it in my veins.....Here we go again...........!

Rgds.

Dave


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

SN NewsCaster said:


> A letter written at the Titanic's last port of call before it hit an iceberg describes the liner as a "positive danger".
> 
> More from BBC News...


"Positive danger"; what an interesting expression. Could there be a negative danger do you think? If so I suppose it would be a safety feature. 

Apart from this warning letter, I am sure that Nostradamus must have predicted this disaster somewhere in his rambling writings. 

And if you are into selective interpretation, maybe Revelations 12:12 forewarns this too: 

_"Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."_

Or again Revelations 18:17

"For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off"

Regards,

Brian


----------



## Chris Isaac (Jul 29, 2006)

Or some silly sod forgot to invent Radar


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

This letter written without the benefit of hindsight has a chilling resemblance to those of us who are saying that current cruise ships are too big, and those who are saying modern built ships are safe. 

I have that feeling that even when predicted in advance, some people will never sway from their opinion. I have predicted many accidents shore side, then dealt with the body. People in our local Club simply refused to believe this or that was the cause. Some even gave me the cause of death, yet I peformed the autopsy. Life and peoples perception of a cast iron case is often quite extraordinary. As the line goes in Jaws:" You won't believe it if it comes up and bites your backside"?!!. David


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

I think Mr Rowe was probably very farsighted. A farmer who knew nothing of the sea, yet he commented on her ( Titanics' ) size and lack of reserve power. 

Some people have the gift of foresight but unfortunately dont realise it. He obviously felt something was wrong in her size.

David said it -- Are modern ships getting too big ? 

Is complacency creeping in ? 

Is the Sea Diamond incident a warning ?

Chris.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

This promises to be the start of a great debate, it has all the hallmarks of it: paranormal, technology, progress, human ambition and failing.......

I think the old seaman's saying 'if she feels right, she is right' is a maxim I would abide by. One of the tugs I was on - Holyhead Towing's 'Afon Las' (Ex 'Plateau' of the Port of London Authority) was never designed for open water. She had a yacht type radar, ordinary glass in her wheelhouse windows. Access to the wheelhouse was via the main deck and up a ladder - yet she came through some memorable seas including a gale 9 in the Southern North Sea. She was uncomfortable - but at no time did any one of us feel unsafe. She was a lovely wee sea boat.

BTW, I later had a prediction about my future after insulting the Old Man on her in a drunken fit of rage. It came true as I was sacked a few days later.....

Jonty


----------



## Geoff Garrett (May 2, 2006)

....bet Mr Rowe was jimmys gran'dad...


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

if he did'nt like it he could'f got off before it sailed


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

I don't know that this letter is anything exceptional, all reads to me like just another blood having a moan about the boat. Now if he had said, "this ship is going to hit an iceberg at ..hours on ..date," then sceptics on the paranormal would be forced to take notice.
As to the other question that this has raised, the size and design of modern cruise ships, then that is a different matter.
CBoots


----------



## makko (Jul 20, 2006)

There is an interesting sidebar to this - There is definitely an air of superstition to all the comments and are we not seafarers?! The story that did the rounds in Wallasey was that, as money was running short, wood from de-conecrated (demolished) churches was used in her contruction - yet again the superstition angle.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## SeaStoryWriter (Dec 31, 2006)

You'd think that the wood from the churches would carry a bit of God's good will within it, wouldn't you? Yeah, Sea Diamond was a definite warning-if you consider the size of the ship versus the number of souls aboard as a ratio, the number would be greater than on RMS Titanic. As to the letter, sometimes people just have a hunch that's correct-look up the Waratah-a passenger had a vision and disembarked-good idea-saved his life.


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

I cannot for the life of me see how the paranormal is creeping in here. This letter is nothing more than a passenger concerned about a ship bigger than he had known before. Jonty is right when he mentions technology, progress, human ambition and failing. But paranormal, certainly not. This letter is not a prediction, but a fact of that era just as we are concerned about large vessels of this era.

I am quite certain this is a passenger worried about a new ship being so big that he saw it as being a danger to other ships in port. If he had sailed on smaller ships, Titanic would have seemed big to him thus his concern.

New technology always worries people. In 1825, British railway pioneer George Stephenson deliberately lied to a parliamentary inquiry. He told the committee of MP's that trains would never travel faster than 19km/h (12mph), even though he knew that they could already reach speeds more than twice as great. Stephenson decieved the MPs in order to allay public fears of the new mode of travel. Political opponents had claimed that it could seriously damage passengers health. Trains travelling at more than 19km/h they insisted would expose the passengers to the risk of being suffocated because the speed would suck all the air out of their lungs. I also read somewhere that speeds like that would burst ear drums.

I therefore see this letter as no more than a worried passenger of the era. Whether he had a point or not, well, some will say he did, others would say he didn't. 

It could be argued that the only difference to today regarding these giant cruise ships is that predictions are being made by seafarers like myself based on our experiences and training at sea when seeing the thousands of passengers they carry many of whom do not have a clue of shipboard life or what to do in an emergency. This is nothing to do with design etc. It boils down to human failings thinking that everything will be done for them. 

If you look at the pictures aboard Sea Diamond, passengers were just hanging around on deck with the ship listing badly. Some posing for pictures not seeming to realize the gravity of the situation. If I had been there, and could see no organisation, I would be looking to launch a liferaft or something. I am more than capable of doing that having been trained to as would many other members on this site. That is the difference, and that is why we can see problems on these bigger ships of today with a major disaster just waiting to happen. Those who can't, or don't want to see it have based their theory it would seem on their confidence on modern technology and design. But when and if a major disaster does happen it is more likely to be human error and total mayhem amongst the thousands of passengers who will not have a clue as to what to do despite passenger drill, and despite messages in cabins making the crews job harder if not impossible at times however well trained they are or how well the ship is designed. You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink. 

Near to land they have a chance like with Sea Diamond. But if they are days from land like were were on sections of Oriana's world cruise and in heavy seas, it is a different matter entirely. David


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

David,

I was speaking tongue in cheek re. the letter.

I agree with your points on the size of ships nowadays and how they must appear to be floating monstrosities designed for no more than than luxury at sea at huge cost - yet still manned by cheap crews. I was never once attracted to going to sea on one. I did a visit to the QE2 years ago when we were tied up in Southampton on an AHTS - and I was, frankly, appalled by the bull (Master-at-Arms, uniformed QM's etc ) and there was a sense of jealous structure there too, even on the lower deck. " I wear a better uniform than you...etc" . No way would I have lasted the trip down the Solent never mind to New York!

If we are going to see accidents we have yet to see a huge loss of life. Will it happen? Maybe that's what we should be asking. 

'Titanic' lost lives because of the lack of watertight bulkheads and lifeboats - not from lack of very well trained crew under the command of an otherwise excellent Master.

Jonty


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Jonty,
There's truth in what you say. I know a fair few blokes (about a dozen) who've been sailing on cruise ships in their respective departments (all Mates and Engineers), mostly with Carnival - that is Cunard/P&O/Holland America etc.
Most of them did a good few years on them, and are now either ashore or back on cargo ships. When asked if they'd ever take a cruise on one of their old ships, everyone to a man replies "never, I've been on them, and I know what goes on or more to the point what doesn't".
Says it all really.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

James,

I have a couple of old friends who ended up on them when the bottom fell out of both deep sea and Offshore. To a man they returned after a couple of trips and went coasting, dredging - anything but back on them! 

They said the same things: Shortcuts so as to keep schedules, not informing the passengers when things got a bit out of order, ropey drills with crews who barely understood English never mind orders like 'belay that fall!'.....

As for cruises, never been tempted to do that either. It's all glitz, glamour and how much can you be fleeced for something you could walk down the gangway and find yourself!

Jonty


----------



## Tmac1720 (Jun 24, 2005)

If you think about it for a moment White Star and Harland and Wolff both knowingly sent a ship to sea in an unsafe condition in that they knew there was not enough lifeboat capacity for all the souls aboard. Likewise the BoT issued a safety certificate for the vessel knowing the same thing.
Furthermore with regard to the sluice valve arrangement, I shall leave any further comment to the conspiracy theorists(*))


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Profit before people. What changed?

Jonty


----------

