# New On The Titanic



## John Rogers (May 11, 2004)

Design fault may have doomed Titanic before it sailed
London
June 13, 2007


THE Titanic faced disaster from the moment it set sail, experts now believe.

Research suggests that, even if the ocean liner had not struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage, structural weaknesses made it vulnerable to any stormy sea.

The flaws, uncovered by researchers who found, filmed and analysed previously undiscovered portions of the Titanic's keel, also reduced the time the vessel remained afloat after hitting an iceberg on April 14, 1912 — scuppering the chances of rescue boats sent to the scene arriving in time.

To date, it was thought that after striking the iceberg, water flooded into the bow and forced the vessel's stern to rise until, when it reached 45 degrees, the ship snapped in half and sank. It is this version of events that was depicted in the 1997 Oscar-winning film Titanic.

But the findings of the new research project, a collaboration between the History Channel and Lone Wolf Do***entary Group, an American film company, suggest that the Titanic broke in half when its stern had reached an angle of 10 degrees, which could have occurred in heavy seas in a severe storm.

Rushmore DeNooyer, who led the project, said: "Titanic broke at a very shallow angle, yet ships experience shallow angles like this in storms when they are tilted up by large waves.

So perhaps Titanic wasn't designed strongly enough. If the force that broke it was no greater than the force it would have faced in a hurricane, ergo, it could have been broken in a hurricane."

Clues to the fundamental weakness in the Titanic's design emerged after a submersible, which dived to the wreck two years ago, filmed previously undiscovered parts of the ship. This footage allowed researchers to calculate the angle at which the Titanic was tilting when it broke up.

The team also found parts of the aft "expansion joint" — the ship had two, near the bow and stern — which were supposed to allow the hull to flex in heavy seas. Analysis suggests that they were poorly designed and may have contributed to the ship breaking up at the shallow 10 degree angle.

To test their theory, the team dived on the Britannic, the Titanic's sister ship, which was also built at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast and sank in 1916 in the Mediterranean after hitting a mine.

They found that the builders had altered the design and fitted an extra expansion joint, prompting suspicions that the yard was aware of the faults with the Titanic.

The shallow angle at which it buckled is also believed to have contributed to the death toll of 1500.

Researchers believe that many people, assuming the Titanic would stay afloat for hours, remained on board in the warmth. But she sank after two hours and 40 minutes.


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

I will be watching this programme with interest having seen some of this company's earlier do***entaries. Here is my take on it - and I can state freely that this is all my personal opinion so I am not being a hypocrite.

Beware - it will NOT be serious science folks - the material will be dressed up as a dramatic adventure story with probably no more than 10% of factual material amongst the drama. The main purpose of TV shows is to draw in viewers as consumers of advertising - which is basically what pays for it all. The pressure to draw audiences means that they have to "sex up" programmes to try and prevent channel-hopping. With the typical viewer of TV having an attention span slightly shorter than that of a gnat, there is no room for scientific argument (BOOOOORRRRING!) - the punters will lose interest and switch to the Shopping Channel if they have to think. Oh - and you'd better change the image every 10 seconds or so or the viewers might go to sleep and miss the special 2-for-1 offer on buckets of lard and sawdust burgers.

This is a pity because genuine scientific analysis of the images captured by the team could indeed reveal new and interesting facts that could be held up to scrutiny. Unfortunately the scientific stuff - such as it is - will be lost amongst the other crap. I will stake my life savings (that's about £50 in French Francs) that the scientific basis of the claims made - such as they are - will not be explained. "Experts" will make statements, or state opinions and not be challenged. 

Note some of the "weasel words" used in this article - I bet they all crop up in the programme:

Research suggests that ....
..... could have occurred .....
Perhaps .....
If the force ...
Researchers believe that ...
In other words you can expect conjecture rather than proof.

Good luck to the programme makers - they make a damn sight more money than I do. But I for one will not be swayed by half-baked theories and opions not fully substantiated.

And here endeth the lesson ..... [=P] 
*PS:* I think we need a soapbox smiley for this site.

Regards,

Brian


----------



## aleddy (Apr 8, 2006)

Same old same old, do they mention Olympic ever copping a bit of weather
Cheers 
Ted


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

aleddy said:


> Same old same old, do they mention Olympic ever copping a bit of weather
> Cheers
> Ted


My thoughts as well I am sure she had a long life we await Tmacs comments.

Paul


----------



## rickles23 (Oct 13, 2006)

*Titanic*

"Titanic broke in half when its stern had reached an angle of 10 degrees, which could have occurred in heavy seas in a severe storm"

If memory serves, didn't some of the survivors state that they saw the propellors clear of the water and the underneath of the keel?

I have a few tapes of the Titanic and on one it states that the metal used was too weak and a few minutes later state that the metal was ok...(Scribe)

Regards

rickles23
13 06 07


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

John,

One of my fellow Mods has suggested that I am "shooting the messenger" here and that was not my intention.

Please rest assured that my diatribe was not addressed to you. You have simply brought this programme to our attention with this article and we thank you for taking the trouble to do so.

I hope you will accept my apologies if you took my comments personally.

Regards,

Brian


----------



## Tmac1720 (Jun 24, 2005)

Paul UK said:


> My thoughts as well I am sure she had a long life we await Tmacs comments.
> 
> Paul


I'm saying nothing(Smoke) a few shipmates on board the good ship SN will know why(Night)


----------



## SeaStoryWriter (Dec 31, 2006)

It will be interesting to see-just have to winnow out all the fluff-it's for the video game generation-no attention span whatever. I likewise was thinking of Olympic, and wondering if she was ever subjected to those types of stresses? I've always believed Titanic broke bottom to top-compress anything enough and a chunk is bound to pop free someplace. Ten degrees and the screws out of the water would seem a good proximate guess, if you take a silouette, stick a pin in the center, and tilt the bow ten degrees down. Lest we forget-1500 went with her-tough way to affect change. WILL


----------



## David Byrne (Mar 18, 2006)

*Admirable restraint Tmac*

I admire the admirable restraint shown by Tmac. I, however, don't have to exercise such restraint: if the TV programme keeps to the outline given in the press then I would suggest that it will be just a joke in poor taste, or alternatively, an insult to the intelligence of the viewers.

It's hard to know where to start commenting on the wall-to-wall rubbish presented, so I won't even grace it with a response except to say that there was some excellent work done by one of Tmac's former colleagues a few years ago, David Livingstone (as I recall), together with Bill Garzke (JJ Henry, New York), both senior naval architects using on-site ROV footage: their technical assessment of the sinking is highly detailed, technical and now accepted as the best and last word on the subject. It is published by the Royal Institution of Naval Architects - when i get back to my office I will post the details.

David Byrne


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

David

If you get a chance get a hold of the following book has alot of details and was wrote by Tmac
No Place for a Boy - A Life at Harland & Wolff
Tom McCluskie. Tempus Books, ISBN: 978 0752 4216 3


----------



## Tmac1720 (Jun 24, 2005)

Thanks for the plug Neville, 10% OK??(Jester) 

David, If you want the definitive study on the loss of the RMS Titanic I cannot recommend highly enough the following publication:
The Sinking of the SS Titanic Investigated by Modern Techniques. This comprehensive and technically superb study was produced by two of my former colleagues Mr C Hackett and the late John Bedford both highly respected Naval Architects and Chartered Engineers. Their study was presented to The Institute of Marine Engineers and the Royal Institution of Naval Architects in March 1996 to universal acclaim. I am aware of the work David Livingstone did with Bill Garzkie however as this was not sanctioned, approved or supported by H&W it was not as comprehensive as the Hackett/Bedford study. The Livingstone/Garzke work was produced for the Discovery Channel at the request of the late George Tullough who had hired David as a consultant to the programme. I think possibly you might be confusing their work with the Hackett/Bedford study which is indeed widely accepted as the most definitive and accurate assessment of the sinking and was produced using the original H&W drawings and technical information which I supplied.


----------



## Mark Chirnside (Feb 19, 2006)

Hi David,



David Byrne said:


> I admire the admirable restraint shown by Tmac. I, however, don't have to exercise such restraint: *if* the TV programme keeps to the outline given in the press then I would suggest that it will be just a joke in poor taste, or alternatively, an insult to the intelligence of the viewers.


I think you're absolutely right, and I agree entirely. I think anyone truly knowledgeable in the technical field would defend the basic structural strength of the 'Olympic' class design. To suggest that they would not cope with a severe Atlantic storm is ridiculous. Tmac has done good work in refuting some of the crackpot theories that surfaced in the 1990s.

As we know, Olympic served for 24 years and some of the storms she came through -- such as in November 1928 when a wave smashed over the bow, and swept the entire length of the promenade deck, smashing windows and damaging fittings -- were horrendous. In 1921, she was caught in hurricane force winds and despite damage to deck fittings and smashed portholes she did not sustain any significant structural damage.

However, in fairness, and from what I have been told by several researchers involved with the programme, the newspaper reporter got it wrong. He was told the questions that the show would be asking, but he wasn't given the answers. So, he supplied them himself using his over-active imagination. The article's diagram even showed the expansion joints going right down through the structural hull all the way to the keel, and that's simply not true. That being the case, I don't think the programme will follow the course of the newspaper article. It may turn out to be a very balanced, informative piece. Let's keep our fingers crossed, eh?

Best wishes,

Mark.


----------



## David Byrne (Mar 18, 2006)

Tmac you are absolutely right - I was thinking of the John Bedford paper when I made my comments: the perils of firing from the hip when away from my papers (that's my excuse anyway). The paper you mention is the one I was thinking about - apologies to John and his colleague. (Incidentally, John was one of the most pleasant and knowledgeable naval architects I ever worked with).

I also agree with the last posting - I suppose we should wait to see the programme before getting too over-wrought. Then, once we have seen it, we can go back to being over-wrought all over again.

David Byrne


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

Mark is quite correct, the Olympic Class were built beyond the standards required _of the day_ the trouble with revisionist history us that it tends to ask would this method/standard/material of construction be permitted now - the answer is no. However we have only achieved this knoledge by experience and failure.

More pertinent is my belief that if the "Titanic" had not foundered with the large loss of life then ships would have continued to be allowed to sail with inadequate lifeboat capacity, this would have caused even greater loss of life in the Great War - possibly even on the "Britannic"


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

Duncan112 said:


> Mark is quite correct, the Olympic Class were built beyond the standards required _of the day_ the trouble with revisionist history us that it tends to ask would this method/standard/material of construction be permitted now - the answer is no. However we have only achieved this knoledge by experience and failure.
> 
> More pertinent is my belief that if the "Titanic" had not foundered with the large loss of life then ships would have continued to be allowed to sail with inadequate lifeboat capacity, this would have caused even greater loss of life in the Great War - possibly even on the "Britannic"


Interesting you should say that Duncan. I wonder if you have been following this thread about lifeboats which seems to suggest that they are more dangerous than not having any: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=12041

Regards,

Bran


----------



## SeaStoryWriter (Dec 31, 2006)

Positive change never seems to come without someone paying the ultimate price. Just finished a novella in which I explore that fact-the lesson of Titanic goes unheeded, and so it happens again, to RMS Mauretania in 1914. Hope to get it published sometime soon. WILL


----------



## Steve Woodward (Sep 4, 2006)

The lesson of the Titanic has been learned - I stay away from icebergs


----------



## Mark Chirnside (Feb 19, 2006)

Steve Woodward said:


> The lesson of the Titanic has been learned - I stay away from icebergs


Quite right, Steve.

Don't you just hate the taste of lettuce? (Thumb) 

Best wishes,

Mark.


----------



## Ngaio 62 (Jul 9, 2005)

"the newspaper reporter got it wrong."

what's new?

Martin


----------



## Mark Chirnside (Feb 19, 2006)

Ngaio 62 said:


> "the newspaper reporter got it wrong."
> 
> what's new?


Fair point, Martin!

I have not seen the show yet, unlike our American friends. However, I have corresponded with some involved. The word is that 'In the end' they 'found the Titanic was *more then strong enough to handle regular sea service.*'

Best wishes,

Mark.


----------



## Duncan112 (Dec 28, 2006)

benjidog said:


> Interesting you should say that Duncan. I wonder if you have been following this thread about lifeboats which seems to suggest that they are more dangerous than not having any: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=12041
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bran


Yes, I have been following this thread with interest, and biting my tongue, I believe the majority of lifeboat accidents in recent years have been caused by inexperience and inappropriate technology, band bowsing on ferries being a case in point - I was lucky and only saw broken fingers, lives have been lost (I understand that one accident was due to a surveyor issuing incorrect instructions) I have also seen a chief officer (non commonwealth) sucessfully release the on load/off load release whilst the boat was hanging in the falls, the damage (although thankfully no injuries - heaven knows how) was extensive.

There is no substitute for good old fashioned seamanship and experience, this is not gained by the current accelerated promotion structure. 

The fact is, however in both world wars more lives were saved by the use of lifeboats than were lost by their use. I appreciate that war is a, thankfully, unusual cir***stance.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Difference was that back during Big Mistake 2 lifeboats were open and fairly foolproof. The bone of contention in the aforementioned thread is limited to those boats brought in as a result of the 1986 amendment to SOLAS.


----------

