"Hard a starboard" and related subjects

[samhalpern]

>>You can play clever with witness statements from now until doomsday but you cannot alter the physical evidence which point to Titanic barely having begun to turn whe she hit. Do you agree?<<

No I don't agree. The physical evidence says nothing about the original course line the ship had been on. It only shows what happened from the time the ship struck to the time of last contact that caused damage.

And I'm not playing clever with witness statements. If you want to ignore what Fleet and Lee said they saw, then so be it.

By the way, you are correct that Ranger never said he actually saw the valve arms go up, but something caused him to turn around and look down a minute or two after the collision. His timing estimate as to when the engines stopped is consistent with other witness accounts, including Lightoller, Stengel, Beesely, just to name a few. So whatever engine orders Murdoch sent down, the engine room staff was obviously unprepared to deal with them.

You talk about Scott's evidence as to engine orders seen as somewhat suspect. I agree. And I would include in that his claim that it was two greasers who answered the telegraphs. It was not their job to do any of that unless they were ordered to answer them by one of the engineers in charge. The duty engineers had the responsibility of carrying out engine orders and sending orders to the stokeholds.

I also view Boxhall's claims about everything he heard and saw with some suspect. Included in this is his claim that the telegraphs showed full speed astern as he came onto the bridge, that Murdoch told Smith he put the engines full astern and intended to port around the berg, his claim as to hearing the 3 bells from the nest as came out of the officer's quarters, that the berg was less than the height of the forecastle deck, just to name a few. People, including ship's officers, become very protective of their peers whenever something bad happens, especially when the person most responsible is no longer around to tell their side of the story.

[ardtornish]

Good evening Sam!

"The physical evidence says nothing about the original course line the ship had been on."[/i]

True! We cannot tell if she was heading 265 or 266 True. However it tells us a lot.

For a start-off, it tells us that the ship did not hit the iceberg head-on.

The verbal evidence tells us that the iceberg was reported to be 'right ahead'.
So; if the iceberg was right ahead; and the ship did not hit it with her stem bar; something must have happened for this to come about. Do you aree thus far?

If you do, then what was that 'something' which changed the outcome?
Might it just have been a small change of heading? Or a small change form her original course whatever that might have been?

To me in any case. the physical evidence is the fact that Titanic did not have a crumpled bow but that she had side damage very close to the bow. You can think otherwise if you like.

[color=#4000BF][i]If you want to ignore what Fleet and Lee said they saw, then so be it."

So what parts of Fleet and Lee's statements is it that I am ignoring?

The bit where Lee said she was coming round to port while he was at the wheel or what?
What is absolutely sure is; if Lee saw Titanic's bow starting to move left while Fleet was on the phone, Murdoch saw that icebergs and shouted his helm order at the same time or just before Fleet called the bridge.
Fleet's evidence gives the impression of bells,phone and bow movement almost as a continuous flow. Or do yu disagree with that too?

This is not about when the helm order was given but about the interval between when the Quartermaster responded and when the ship hit the iceberg. It has nothing to do with what Fleet or Lee said in their evidence.

I would have been astounded to learn that the engine room staff were prepared for Murdoch's emergency.
During a normal Watch, the engineers would have particular chores to carry out. The Chief would have left instructions for these in his night order book which was probably kept on the control platform along with the log and any other data record books containing details of the constant monitoring of the machinery etc
This was normal in such an engine room. Because of this, duty engineers would be roving about doing their 'thing'. How sure are you that the Greasers would not answer a telegraph signal? After all that's all it was... a signal. But it was a signal that had to be answered immediately, not when an engineer could be found to carry out the task. It was an emergency. The nearest man to the telegraphs would answer them so that the bridge would know that the request had been seen and understood. Only the duty engineer would actually operate the engine controls.

Clearly you have not worked in an engine room.

"ship's officers, become very protective of their peers whenever something bad happens, especially when the person most responsible is no longer around to tell their side of the story."

Now how do you know that Sam? Don't you think that if there was no one round to contradict him, a surviving officer would say whatever he thought might help him to continue to survive?

From where I'm standing, it looks to me like old Boxhall will be damned if he didn't and continue to be damned even if he did.

Ard.

[samhalpern]

>>So what parts of Fleet and Lee's statements is it that I am ignoring?<<

Senator FLETCHER. To what extent did she change her course from the direct line?
Mr. FLEET. You mean how far did she go?
Senator FLETCHER. Yes.
Mr. FLEET. A little over a point, or two points.

Lee: "she veered to port, and it seemed almost as if she might clear it"

The first is a quantified estimate of just how far her head veered to port before striking the berg. If she turn only 1/2 a point it would have been more than double the time it would have taken Hichens to turn the wheel over 4 times around to get it hard over.

[ardtornish]

No Sam, I am not ignoring that bit of evidence, like you, I have considered it and every other bit of the evidence given by both lookouts. However. lets look at Fleet's entire 'quantitive statement'.

Senator FLETCHER.
When you turned from the telephone and observed the course of the ship, you saw she had turned to port?
Senator FLETCHER.
Did she turn immediately and suddenly, or gradually, to port?
Mr. FLEET.
Just started to go as I looked up."

Perhaps when he said:

"Senator FLETCHER. To what extent did she change her course from the direct line?
Mr. FLEET. You mean how far did she go?
Senator FLETCHER. Yes.
Mr. FLEET. A little over a point, or two points"

Might this be read as:

I looked up from the phone and saw that she had just started to turn to port. When we cleared the iceberg, I noticed she had turn a little over a point, or two points away from her original course' ?

All of your previous work on the subject seems to have been a development of the Olympic turning trials and seems to excludes a crucial factor. Have you considered what the effect of a sudden push to one side might have on the direction Titanic's bow was pointing? Newton's Third Law?
In your work, I cannot find any mention of lateral force being applied to the bow at the moment of impact. Perhaps I am missing it?
You might also like to consider the 'Donkey' effect whereby the position of the pivot point goes through a very quick series of changes in a ship going ahead and being given a push on the bow.
Have a look here;www.cpslc.com/media/a_understanding_pivot__049144700_1201_28102010.pdf .... particularly at FIGs. 20 & 21. There are deeper, more technical examples elsewhere on the www.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that when a ship's bow hits a relatively immoveable object, the bow surrenders and moves very quickly away from it. Try the experiment yourself with a floating object.

Ard.

[samhalpern]

>>Have you considered what the effect of a sudden push to one side might have on the direction Titanic's bow was pointing? <<

Yes.

>>In your work, I cannot find any mention of lateral force being applied to the bow at the moment of impact. Perhaps I am missing it?<<

App. G.

"The results of the analysis using the equations derived by Shengming Zhang are as follows:
- Energy loss during initial collision = 31,540,000 ft-lbs
- Contact impulse Ix = 8,660,000 lbs-sec = 3,870 ton-sec
- Forward velocity after collision = 34.5 ft/sec
- Initial sway velocity after collision = 1.4 ft/sec
- Added rotational velocity imparted to the ship = 0.99 degrees per sec to port

The instantaneous center, or pivot point with respect to the center of percussion (which was taken just ahead of bulkhead B) was also calculated. This is the point where zero collision forces would be felt by someone located in the vicinity of that point. The instantaneous center on Titanic during the impact with the iceberg was found to be located about 545 feet aft of the bow, or between the third and fourth funnels."

[nboal]

I was reading some portions of the Smith hearings. Especially the testimony given by Robert Hichens. Apparently, there may -- or may not -- have been some confusion as to what was meant by the order "Hard A-Starboard." In sailboats, "hard a-starboard" means push the tiller hard to starboard, which means that the sailboat will turn to port. Back when I used to sail in my parents' sailboat, whenever we would come about, the skipper would order, "Ready about. Hard a-lee" which meant turn the tiller toward the leeward side, and the boat would go into the wind (the opposite way from where the tiller is pushed).

However, in ships using steering wheels, pulling the wheel to starboard means that the boat will also go to starboard. This is assuming that whoever is giving the command is using "wheel terminology" rather than "tiller terminology." However, I believe that the officers on the Titanic were using "tiller terminology." Which would mean that when Murdoch commanded "hard a-starboard", that this would mean turn the ship toward port. Senator Smith was asking Hichens why the ship was being turned to starboard.

I believe that subsequent testimony cleared up this confusion. It was clear that Hichens turned the ship toward port. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[ardtornish]

Thanks Sam!

Very scholarly. I missed that bit.

However it fits neatly with the 'Donkey effect'. It shows that the pivot point which was about 1/3L from the bow before contact, transferred aft at the moment of contact. Thereafter, as you have pointed out, the center of side-ways push moved aft as the ship passed the iceberg. The result of this would be a constant changing of the position of the center of flotation.
First, the bow would start turning left.. to port. Then, 6 seconds later it would hit the iceberg about 20 feet aft of the stem. The bow would be pushed suddenly left. At that moment, the center of floatation would be instantly transferred to about 2 thirds L from the stem and the bow would cant right in defiance of the rudder action. As more of the ship move into relatively undisturbed water beyond the iceberg, the Center of Flotation would begin to move forward again. The instant contact was lost, the rudder action would take over and the ship would resume her turn to port. All of this would have taken place in the first 12 seconds. During the next 9 seconds, the stern would resume closing on the iceberg.
I tried to explain this idea in another post some time ago. Here is the rough sketch I used to illustrate my point:

donkey motion.JPG (42.59 KiB) Viewed 669 times

Perhaps you can do the maths on it and make a name for yourself? The jury is still out on the exact mechanics of the 'Donkey Effect' But exist it most certainly does and as far as I can see, there is no reason to reject it as a contributor in the way Titanic moved her bow during the time she tried to avoid the ice.
Perhaps the error in the past has been to neglect the ever-changing position of the 'virtual 'Pivot Point?

I not you make no further comment of the evidence of Fleet!

Good day nboal!

In 1912, they still used the 'tiller' commands althought the wheel was turned in the direction in which they wished the bow to go. It was much later that they abolished this. Hichens thought in terms of 'turn left therefore turn wheel left' That's what hard-a-starboard meant to him. He and others like him would have found it difficult to re-adjust when the helm commands were standardised at a later date.
I quote for a British Ministry of Transport edict:

"from 30th June, 1931, helm or steering orders to the steersman shall be given in the direct sense, e.g. when the ship is going ahead an order containing the word 'starboard' or 'right' or any equivalent of 'starboard' or 'right shall only be used when it is intended, on ships as at the present generally constructed and arranged, that the wheel, the rudder blade and the head of the ship, shall all move to the right."

Ard.

[samhalpern]

I'll let the article I referenced speak for itself regarding the issue of time between when the helm order was given and the time when the ship struck the iceberg.

Regarding the terminology used in 1912, it was not just in the helm orders that were given, but also the same terminology was used to described how a ship turned. When someone said the ship starboarded, they meant her stern swung out to starboard as the ship's head turned to port. If they said she ported, it meant just the opposite. There was absolutely no confusion back then about any of that.

For example, here is how Capt. Rostron described how he mauevered his ship to pick up the first lifeboat:

25405. And you intended, as I follow you, to pick her up on the port bow? -[Rostron] Yes, on the port side; that was the lee-side; but just after I saw his light I saw an iceberg right ahead. Then, of course, I starboarded - I could not port - to get away from the berg; so I starboarded to make it more convenient for the boat I was going to pick up, and I picked it up on the starboard side.

There are many such examples that could be given. An order to starboard the helm meant to put the tiller over to starboard. As in sailing vessels, to put the tiller over to starboard meant that you had to turn the wheel counter-clockwise. To port the helm, the wheel had to be turned clockwise. To the helmsmen back then it was an automatic reaction.

[Dave Gittins]

A small historical note. The orders change did not happen in 1931. The government played around as usual and nothing happened until 1 January 1933. For six months after that the order was preceded by the words 'wheel to' in order to prevent confusion.

One reason for the change was that some nations, such as Denmark, introduced the new orders long before Britain. It was getting messy for pilots, who had to start proceedings by asking the skipper of the ship to be piloted which orders he used. Even so, there were long arguments over the changes and a petition against them signed by more than 8,500 mariners, including Sir Arthur Rostron.

A strong supporter of the changes was Earl Jellicoe, who told parliament he had seen errors made under the old orders and taken special steps to avoid them. He thought it offensive to suggest British seamen were too thick to adapt to changes.

[DanFilson]

The most damaging action taken on the bridge once the iceberg was spotted was the order to Full Reverse engines. This negated the attempt to port around the iceberg, as it left the ship without power once the forward was disengaged. The Cameron film shows well the agonising period of continued forward movement of the ship drifting under its own momentum until the Reverse started to take effect, which by then was too late. So had the wheel movement turning the ship to port been combined with Full Ahead being maintained, would the ship still have collided with the iceberg at all and would a collision have been less damaging if further back? If struck amidships, the ship would have been severely damaged but fewer than five compartments might have been compromised, and there would have been no pulling down by the head (or the stern) which caused such catastrophic overflowing from one compartment to another. However further back, the engine room seems to have not been sub-divided so compromise of the engine room - if the iceberg struck there - would have meant loss of power including electricity to the ship. This combined with sinking by the stern might have been just as fatal as the collision that did occur. But if the iceberg had only struck the stern, possibly removing the propellers and rudder, the ship might have survived (to be towed, who knows, safely to port by Olympic, had there been tow ropes of sufficient strength?).

So the question is, would Titanic have survived if Full Astern had been maintained?

Incidentally, Captain Smith would have ordered a radio CQD or SOS a lot sooner if the ship had been rammed amidships or lost its engine room or stern, rather than simply bumped past an iceberg seemingly with little overt damage.

[VW1956]

Hello Dan Filson. You mention that Captain Smith would have ordered a CQD or SOS sooner had Titanic been hit amidships and you are probably right in that. What amazes me is that he visited the Marconi room to tell the radio operators to get ready to send a CQD but it took him 25 minutes to return to tell them to actually send for assistance. He must have known the first time he visited the radio room how serious the situation was but did not want to ask for help just in case they could get themselves out of trouble. Captain Smiths mind must have been in absolute turmoil during those 25 minutes. We do know now that even if the Captain had ordered a CQD to be sent when he first visited the radio room that it would have made no difference to the dreadful outcome. Ken.

[Mark Chirnside]

The most damaging action taken on the bridge once the iceberg was spotted was the order to Full Reverse engines.

Welcome aboard Dan.

You'll find many researchers will disagree with that argument, in that a full analysis of all the available testimony does not support the view that the order to reverse engines was given prior to the collision, or that the engines were stopped and reversed before the collision occurred.

Best wishes,

Mark.

[Aaron2010]

I think the engines were reversed because the Titanic was moving very slow when they passed the iceberg.


.

[Mark Chirnside]

'Evening Aaron,

Hope you're well.

I think the engines were reversed because the Titanic was moving very slow when they passed the iceberg.

Perceptions of speed are rather subjective, but I wouldn't agree with the statement that 'Titanic was moving very slow' at the time. She certainly slowed after the collision.

Apart from Boxhall's statement that he had seen the engine room telegraphs indicating 'full astern' when he entered the bridge, there is nothing substantial to support it. Boxhall's account of Murdoch's conversation with Smith, where he described reversing the engines, is at odds with both quartermasters who were also there - neither of whom overheard any reference to engine orders. Nor was the sort of considerable vibration - inevitable if the engines were reversed at such high speed - reported, even if there had been time to carry out such an order. Samuel Halpern dealt with the evidence very well in the chapter he wrote, Chapter 5, covering the collision inside the recent Centennial Reappraisal book.

Best wishes,

Mark.

[Aaron2010]

I believe it was the general course of action to take. Reverse the engines and avoid the danger. Three other ships did it that night.

Captain of the Californian - "On seeing the ice, we were so close we had to reverse the engine and put her full speed astern."

Captain of the Mount Temple - "We immediately put the helm hard astarboard, and I ordered full speed astern and took the way off the boat."

Captain of the Carpathia - "I went full speed astern."


I think the Quartermasters on the Titanic were not trying to hear what Murdoch was telling the captain on the bridge wing. The events that followed were very traumatic and I doubt little details like that could be remembered. e.g. Quartermaster Olliver said the officer yell 'Hard-a-port' but Quartermaster Hichens who was at the wheel never mentioned this at the inquiry.

Survivors said the collision was a strong vibration. I think they were really feeling the engines being reversed. Even those at the stern felt it and they were 800 feet away from the bow. 2nd class passenger Lawrence Beesley was right above the engine room and he said the engines suddenly gave an extra heave. Everyone who was awake felt a shudder through the entire ship. Joseph Scarrott said: "It seemed as if the ship shook in the same manner as if the engines had been suddenly reversed to full speed astern, just the same sort of vibration, enough to wake anybody up if they were asleep."

Survivor John Poingdestre said:

Q - At the time you felt the shock do you think your engines were working astern or working ahead?

A - I felt the vibration, but I could not say whether the engine was going ahead or astern.

Q - But it was a big vibration, was it?

A - Yes.

Q - A sort of vibration that would tell a sailor that probably the engines were going astern?

A - Yes.



.