Talk:Titanic/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Land Stations Receiving CQD

This article lists the only location receiving the CQD from Titanic as being at Cape Race, Newfoundland (Canada).

There is at least one claim that the Marconi station at Cape Bear, Prince Edward Island (Canada) was the first to receive the CQD. I am *not* a history expert, but I *am* an amateur radio operator in Prince Edward Island, and I recall this information being present in the Cape Bear lighthouse (still in existence, although the radio station is long gone.) There have been a series of amateur radio events involving inter-lighthouse contacts which have been based at the Cape Bear lighthouse.

I would suggest that this site may be of some assistance in performing research:

http://www.peisland.com/visit/capebear/cpbear.html

Although the site itself is not maintained, there is a page which used to show a photo of the antenna equipment used to receive the distress call.

There is a site maintained by the Community Museums Association of Prince Edward Island that also supports this claim:

http://virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Lighthouses/English/06_Cape_Bear/index.html

This site lists the receiving operator as "Thomas Bartlett" (and lists the call as "S.O.S." - I have heard that it was CQD, but that SOS was also used.)

http://www.pointseastcoastaldrive.com/Default.aspx?TabId=117

I'm certain that an historian would be capable of doing the background research to make this information solidly verifiable, of a form which Wikipedia desires. I seek only to correct a potential inaccuracy in the source article - I shall not make edits, because I do not know if there is sufficient "verifiable" source information for this claim.

24.222.41.14 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Titanic's Length

You got the ship's length wrong. I am a member of the TRMA and it is common knowledge around there that Titanic was actually 882' 9". The whole 6" is just a (Unfortunately believed) rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSS Titanic (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 January 2009

Well I looked for sources to corroborate your statement and found some, but also found that corroborates the 6". Then I found one that I think is the most reliable and it says 8". So I updated the length to 862'8" and added the reference. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How is that site a reliable source? To me it doesn't look like it fulfills that policy. I'm inclined to revert unless you can prove that it is one. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Page 4 of The Times of 27 May 1911 has quite a detailed description of Titanic, which they have in turn sourced from The Engineer. They offer 882 ft 9 ins.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, reliable sources emerge. Can we cite to those please? -MBK₀₀₄ 08:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't do The Engineer, but I'm happy to add The Times. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: to use The Times to source the length would mean using the article's account of the breadth as well, wouldn't it? "The extreme breadth is 92ft." rather than as shown at present. Anyone have a problem with that? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Times ref added: dimensions tweaked to match. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lifeboats Launched

{{editsemiprotected}}

Wikipedia currently says under "Lifeboats Launched":

The first lifeboat launched was Lifeboat 7 on the starboard side with 28 people on board out of a capacity of 65. It was lowered at 00:27 and not at 00:40 as popularly believed. Lifeboat 5 was launched two to three minutes later. The Titanic carried 20 lifeboats with a total capacity of 1,178 persons. While not enough to hold all of the passengers and crew, the Titanic carried more boats than was required by the British Board of Trade Regulations. At the time, the number of lifeboats required was determined by a ship's gross register tonnage, rather than her human capacity.

The claim that No. 7 left at 00:27 is unverifed above. I propose to change as follows:

The first lifeboat launched was Lifeboat 7 on the starboard side with 28 people on board out of a capacity of 65. It was lowered at around 00:40 as believed by the British Inquiry (footnote to http://home.comcast.net/~bwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboats.htm). Lifeboat 5 was launched two to three minutes later. The Titanic carried 20 lifeboats with a total capacity of 1,178 persons. While not enough to hold all of the passengers and crew, the Titanic carried more boats than was required by the British Board of Trade Regulations. At the time, the number of lifeboats required was determined by a ship's gross register tonnage, rather than her human capacity.

Reasoning for the above:

Current research (see article above) shows the British Inquiry assessors were correct in their estimate of the time for No. 7. Both QM Rowe and 3rd Officer Pitman claimed an earlier time, but both were guessing as to the time, and the above web-site shows they could not have been correct.

Bwormst (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Bill Wormstedt

Done Thank you for providing a citation. Requests with citations are almost always accepted. Leujohn ^(talk) 10:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Expeditions

I think there should be some mention of the prior expeditions to try and locate the wreck, the present section starts by saying that no previous attempts were successful, but atleast Jack Grimm's expedition should get a mention as his was probably the closest to finding it (if not previsouly found (Solaris (but that is possibly left for another section). The section almost reads like everyone else went out with fishing rods trying to find it and Ballard was the only one to try and locate it. Knowledgeum : Talk 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image use in the Memorials subheading

I'm not trying to be picky, however, I believe that the Wikipedia MOS section on images states that text shouldn't be sandwiched by images. We might have to choose which image is best for the article.Shinerunner (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

More memorials

It is mentioned that there is a memorial to Wallace Hartley in Southampton, but there is also a prominent one in his home town of Colne that is probably worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciaA (talk • contribs) 11:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It reads "Wallace Hartley, Band master of the RMS Titanic who perished in the foundering of that vessel, April 15th 1912. Erected by voluntary contributions to commemorate the heroism of a native of this town" and is a bust of the man on a 10ft pedestal located near the war memorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciaA (talk • contribs) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

British vs. American Spelling

Me personally? I'm an American. So when I saw 'artefact' my first instinct was to change it to artifact before I realized that 'artefact' was the British spelling of the word 'artifact'. So my question is, which spelling do we use? Zoogarama (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus has been to use British spelling. Benea (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the consensus and probably the correct one, but artefacts has been changed to artifacts and back again so many times, and created such a lot of futile labour {note spelling :-) } that maybe we should find another term. Relics? Historic objects? Rumiton (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that the consensus on the site as a whole? (Though I doubt that could be enforced all that well) or just for this article because the ship was built by a UK company? Zoogarama (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just changed again, referring to the discussion above, before noticing this new thread. One problem for the casual reader is that U.S. court documents relating to the finds at the wreck site are given in their original spelling of "artifact", whereas the body of the article uses only British English. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Oceanic" written instead of Titanic"

Under Ship History - Maiden Voyage, there's a picture of the two ships and it says "Oceanic" instead of "Titanic." I can't fix it, but whoever can will save readers from a lot of confusion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.28.66 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The caption appears to be correct, there are in fact three ships visible. The ship to the right heading out to sea is the Titanic, there are two ships to the left which are identified as the Oceanic (seen in starboard full view) and the New York (seen from the aft starboard quarter looking forward). Benea (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Damage to Double Hall

Has anyone seen the History Channel documentary "Titanic's Final Moments"? In it they suggest that the ship suffered damage to the double hull as well and when the ship broke apart a large section of the keel broke off, which was later discovered.- Just Phil 15:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Section 4.1 - S.S.Californian Inquiry - Anomaly?

Does anyone consider that sub-section 4.1 in the article (The S.S. Californian Inquiry.) should include additional detail? The heading of the sub-section is slightly misleading, because there wasn't a formal inquiry, or specific investigation, into the circumstances surrounding the alleged culpability of those aboard the 'Californian'. Had there been a detailed investigation, at that time, it might have resolved some of the uncertainty and speculation which has continued since then. Sub-section 4.1 correctly notes the conclusions of the Titanic inquiries, with regard to Captain Lord of the 'Californian', but it says nothing about the curious irregularity of the proceedings. Despite the censure and implied negligence, Captain Lord was never formally investigated or charged with any offence under the Merchant Shipping acts. Norloch (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section is confusing. It says that the captain was relieved on the bridge by the third mate at 2210, and that the lights of another ship, which they both agreed was a passenger vessel, were visible then. It seems to imply that the captain did not notice the other ship until the third mate got there. Is that time correct? Then later it says that only the rockets would have been visible at that range. Rather than additional detail, some clarification would help. Rumiton (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a considerable degree of confusion connected with the S.S. Californian. A lot of it seems to stem from the unsystematic nature of the questions that were put to witnesses at both of the inquiries. Some of the confusion with those times, noted in section 4.1, appears to have it's origins in misunderstandings, by the British inquiry lawyers, of what the witnesses actually said. Those misunderstandings then became part of the record. Another minor example of confusion can be seen with regard to the type of ship that was sighted by Groves (the S.S. Californian's Third officer) on the night of April 14th. Groves thought it was a passenger ship but, there wasn't any real agreement with Captain Lord on that point. The Captain was sceptical that the ship in their sight was a passenger vessel. At the time, Lord merely remarked that the only passenger ship he was aware of, in that region, was the Titanic.

In their deliberations, neither the American, nor the British inquiry gave due consideration to several eyewitness reports of at least two other, unidentified, steamships which were also sighted in that vicinity at daybreak. Nor do they appear to have given any serious consideration to evidence by independent witnesses which raised doubts about the validity of the S.O.S. position which the Titanic had transmitted.

More significantly, although both inquiries censured the S.S. Californian for ignoring 'distress' rockets they said nothing about the fact that the Titanic's rockets were not actually fired in a correct sequence that would clearly indicate the signal for distress - as described by the International rules. The Titanic's rockets, fired at five to ten minute intervals, were open to interpretation as an entirely different signal - i.e. the basic 'warning' signal, broadly meaning " keep clear of me" (my engines are stopped or, I am unable to manoeuvre - etc.)

Those are all negative aspects of the Titanic inquiries but it would be misleading to ignore them entirely.Norloch (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy of original message from the SS Amerika

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amerika14April1912.JPG Link shows a copy of the original telegram sent by SS Amerika via RMS Titanic and Cape Race, N.B. to the Hydrographic Office, Washington, DC 14 April 1912, marked received at Hydro Office 9am 15 April 1912. Suggest adding footnote link and post to RMS Titanic images. YvesRenard (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Time zone of wreck site?

What time zone is the wreck site? Its Newfoundland, right? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Collapsible A"

The article mentions "Collapsible A" as having been swamped in the last moments of the sinking. Was this one of the two last lifeboats to float off the boat deck? (One of the latter is described as being upside down, and the other as having taken on water.) Tempshill (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What is RMS Titanic Inc.?

Article needs to state whether Ballard is a principal or otherwise involved with RMS Titanic Inc. Otherwise doesn't seem to make much sense that the company would be awarded salvage rights - clarity in the article is needed. Tempshill (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ballard is not involved with RMS Titanic, Inc., In fact, to the best of my knowledge he steadfastly opposes them. However, when he discovered Titanic, he never claimed her. He's admitted in the past this was a giant mistake on his part, to assume the good faith of the world. RMS Titanic then dove on her and claimed her, thus why the drawn out court battles... Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a movie on the Titanic, and it has Leonardo DiCaprio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.11.112 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spit on the concrete, not on my kitchen floor, cause I don't like raviolli! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.98.126 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's copy edit to "Steel plates and iron rivets"

Too long for edit summary box so: Expand "ductile-brittle", quoting from an existing source. Apply WP:MOS#Unit symbols and abbreviations to temperatures. Change some square brackets. Some WP:TONE regarding mood.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Company's intentions re further lifeboat provision

A {{cn}} request has been attached to "the White Star Line intended, at their discretion, to fit more lifeboats to Olympic & Titanic in future refits and annual overhauls" for some time. The statement is incorrect and I’m just about to remove it. Two of the company's directors were asked about this at the inquiries and they denied it: Ismay was given the opportunity to say this at the US inquiry, but did not do so: Q:"Will you kindly explain, if you can, what the White Star Line had in contemplation in so arranging the [Welin] davits?" Answer "Nothing, that I know of...".[1] At the UK inquiry Sanderson, vice-president, was asked: "You never heard of any suggestion that on those boats you should have a greater number of lifeboats than you carried?" Answer: "That is true." [2] --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Harold Sanderson incredibly stated that all passenger vessels need not increase their lifeboat capacity IN SPITE OF THE TITANIC DISASTER. He like Charles Lightoller participated in a basic whitewash at the British Inquiry, to save the face of Bruce Ismay, and more importantly the White Star Line which meant their jobs. Like Ismay, Sanderson on trial naturally confessed to adhering to the letter-of-the-law(which is why he would make a ludicrous statement of keeping miniscule amount of lifeboats on large ships even after the Titanic tragedy). The British Inquiry hated what happened at the American Inquiry with Senator William Alden Smith not understanding maritime issues. Smith(though ignorant of steamships) was correct in questioning every aspect of the tragedy primarily Ismay & the White Star(In my opinion Smith didn't uncover enough). Alden Smith came off looking like a fool at the American Inquiry and the British took a perfect opportunity to vindicate Ismay & White Star in almost every respect. Alas the White Star Line WAS adhering to the 1894 law of 16 reg boats for a ship 10,000 tons or over so the company was safe in that respect. The British Board of Trade were the real culprits of what happened concerning the lifeboat situation as they dictated to the White Star Line and all other shipping lines the lifeboat rule which in light of the disaster had long needed to be updated. There exists a notebook(Thomas Andrews's) which has red lining over drawings of Olympic(drawings also applied to Titanic). The drawings showed 48 lifeboats originally destined for the ships but this configuration was redlined out(no one knows at who's request). The existence of this notebook probably wasn't known about during the British Inquiry and Andrews had perished with the Titanic. Carlisle's whole testimony of stressing the Welin davits should've answererd the question about more boats simply because of the nature of the davits(each set of davits being able to accomodate three rows of lifeboats; something that would nearly be implemented on Britannic. The White Star line was safe nevertheless because of their adherence to the 1894 law of 16 reg. lifeboats. This despite Carlisle's very informative testimony. Koplimek (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my edit regarding Sanderson's relationship to White Star. Did Carlisle undermine the value of his evidence by, at the time he was specifying the davits while working for H&W, also holding a financial stake in Welin's firm? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Old Moonraker, your welcome about the edit. Carlisle came across as very honest based on what I've read in the transcripts of the British Inquiry. He had nothing to lose he had nothing to gain. He answered questions put before him. The lifeboat issue would've circled back to him(and probably Thomas Andrews if he had survived). Carlisle makes perfectly clear that he was all for the davits singularly in the design stage of the ships. The boats were not his issue as he had left H&W before the decision to install whatever number they had planned had been finalized.(finalized because somewhere I came across in my readings that 28 then 32 boats were planned). In addition to the davits he certainly 'whispered' the 48 boat number but the decision was White Star's call(& the Board of Trade's for sure). From what Im able to understand from the B I transcripts, the davits configuration that were put on the Olympic & Titanic(and still on the wreck today) was capable of 48 boats(3 boats per davit set or 16(davit sets) x 3(lifeboats each) = 48 boats altogether. The transcripts are great reading and lend an understanding of what led to this tragedy. Thanks for the dialogue. Koplimek (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Koplimek (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Koplimek makes a significant point where he notes that the British Board of Trade were the real culprits. The risk implications of much larger passenger ships weren't addressed by the regulatory authority. Arguably, the critical period for that to have been considered with some degree of urgency was perhaps from 1905 onwards. It's notable(but seldom remarked) that the Presidents of the British Board of Trade between 1905 and 1910 were two very ambitious British politicians - David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. By 1912, both had moved on to higher offices but it seems likely that any severe public censure of the Board of Trade would, inevitably, have had some adverse effect on their political careers.Norloch (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, politicians then as now are often in bed with perks for big companies. Once again, Churchill's name comes up in regards to some major political or business decision concerning British industry. We also should remember that he was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the Lusitania sinking, which historians say is an even bigger cover up. Thanks.Koplimek (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the deficiency wasn't just the number of lifeboats available. There was a corresponding deficiency in the number of trained personnel available to launch the boats and then to operate them, after they were launched. That was, perhaps, the most complex aspect to deal with, because it meant much wider regulation plus extensive training programmes for personnel. It wasn't impossible to do all that - the only thing missing was the political will, during the years preceding the disaster. Norloch (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding Problems when constructing Titanic

I would like to add this paragraph to the Titanic page this I learned from a show called Titanic:Achillies Heel which is about problems when constructing Titanic tell me if I should add this or not to the article here is what i decided to say:

When Titanic was under construction, her sister ship R.M.S Olympic was doing her sea trials. Olympic's designer Thomas Andrews was on board with the crew. But they learned during the sea trials that there was number of problems. The main problem on Olympicwas vibration. The reason was because Olympic was made to big. During the designing of Olympic and Titanic Thomas Andrew's original designs were not accepted because he decided to have 1 1/2 inch plating of steel. The white Star Line could not even afford a ship with 1 1/2 inch steel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8323608 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The program synopsis here doesn't mention this. Is there a written source anywhere we could look at? This is all new, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The guidelines at WP:RS will also help. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Old Moonraker makes some entirely valid points. Unfortunately, a number of the claims made are either unsubstantiated and unsupportable, or demonstrably false. It is always necessary to be cautious with regard to many of the revisionist claims that have surfaced in recent years. I realise I cannot reference my own work on Wikipedia, but there are others who have looked into some of these claims and who will be publishing material refuting them in the near future. Mark Chirnside (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Closest City to Sinking

The closest city to the site of the sinking is St. John's, Newfoundland, not Halifax, Nova Scotia. This is not crutial however it is shoddy research. See section 3.3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajkean (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Checked section 3.3—thanks for the pointer. It reads "Halifax, the closest city to the sinking with direct rail and steamship connections". What's the argument? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Belfast, Ireland and UK

Since there is a low-level revert war going on about the country where Belfast lies (currently Ireland, UK at the time of the construction), il suggest to simply remove the information. The reader can look up the Belfast article if needs be. Bokken | 木刀 16:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

why so fast?

Is there any explanation of why it was going so fast? I have heard that the businessmen passengers urged the captain to speed up to cut the time? Is this trure? Why not take a longer trip to miss the icebergs or stop off at night? Engineman (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The primary conclusion of the British enquiry was that the collision was caused by the excessive speed of the Titanic in the prevailing conditions at the time. However, we can only speculate about the reasons for that because those with the main responsibility for the navigation of the ship didn't survive. The Captain, of course, had the ultimate authority but the other officers weren't forced to comply with that if they judged that the captain was acting recklessly or negligently. Blind obedience isn't a good thing on a ship (or anywhere else!). It would be a serious matter to countermand a captain's orders but there are always unorthodox ways to get around that - if the circumstances make it necessary.

On the Titanic, if the senior officer on the bridge had concerns about the speed, perhaps the easiest thing for him to have done was to walk out to the bridge wing, stare into the dark, for a moment, then shout "Hell! What was that? Was that a berg? Something passing very near, starboard side!" The point is that nobody could ever have proved that he hadn't seen an iceberg and it would then have been well within his authority to initiate procedures for slowing down, posting extra lookouts, ordering the radio officers to stop what they were doing and start getting updated ice reports etc. etc.

We know that never happened, but we can only speculate on the why of it. Norloch (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your observations ring true, thanks for them. I think it likely that no bergs had been reported so far on the voyage and with the clear atmosphere they felt pretty safe. Also they were already taking a more southerly route to avoid the densest concentration. And (though this strikes the modern ear strangely) several sources tell us it was a common that dangerous areas be traversed as quickly as possible to minimise the time of exposure. I think a lot of things changed forever with the Titanic. Rumiton (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Check this - http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq28Affeld01.php - Full speed when ice expected seemed common practice. WhaleyTim (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they believed they would always see the bergs if they were big enough to do damage. Regarding Norloch's scenario with the officer of the watch, we have to remember that any such action would place some strain on his credibility with the captain. He might get away with it once, maybe twice, but he would be using up precious goodwill. And some of those old guys didn't have a lot to start with. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an old lawyer's adage which states that you should never ask a question in court, if you don't already know the answer. In other words, it's stating that you should always frame your questions to get the responses that you require. The British enquiry into the loss of the Titanic wasn't, strictly, a court case but the framing of much of the questioning suggest that the lawyers present were quite familiar with that old adage. Maybe the questions which weren't asked can tell us more than those which were!

The testimony of Gerhard Affeld; Red Star Line, which is noted above by WhaleyTim, is an interesting example. The witness responded to all the points that were raised but, of course, he wasn't asked if he had any opinions about circumstances involving much larger, faster, ships. Affeld also gave a quite a detailed response about the limited value of sea temperature as an indicator of the presence of ice - but then, he was never asked specifically if this would always be true for the month of April, in that general area. Nor was he asked if his company's navigation procedures gave particular consideration to ships operating in a sea area which is notorious for the unpredictably rapid onset of fog banks - as well as ice. It would've been fascinating to have had Affeld's explanation of how quickly his ships would slow down in those circumstances but, alas, that was another question which was never asked ! Norloch (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why so fast? You need to keep in mind a simple but very relevant fact; 'how many ships had hit icebergs and sunk before the Titanic'? Answer, none that we know of. It is a little like 9/11. No one had dreamt two aircraft could bring down the WTC. It was the same with Titanic. The Iceberg warning probably stand out like flashing lights when we look back from the 21st Century, but they probably meant no more than 'possible traffic jam' reports to a motorist, to the Titanic Crew.Johnwrd (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - There was what is now often described as a 'Failure of imagination' - The simultaneous failures of the various systems to protect life at sea that were exhibited in the sinking of the Titanic were not considered prior to the event. There is also the example of the RMS Republic. Several sources have argued that the succesful rescue (in somewhat different circumstances to the Titanic) increased the confidence of the maritime establishment in the measures then in place, rather than seeing it as a warning of what could go wrong.WhaleyTim (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of passengers

As per RMS Titanic the passenger total was

Category	Number aboard	Number of survivors	Percentage survived	Number lost	Percentage lost
First class	329	199	60.5 %	130	39.5 %
Second class	285	119	41.7 %	166	58.3 %
Third class	710	174	24.5 %	536	75.5 %
Crew	899	214	23.8 %	685	76.2 %
Total	2,223	706	31.8 %	1,517	68.2 %

but as per Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic they are

Category	Number Aboard	Number of Survivors	Percentage That Survived	Number Lost	Percentage That Were Lost
First Class	324	199	60.5 %	130	39.5 %
Second Class	285	119	43.8 %	153	56.2 %
Third Class	708	174	24.5 %	536	75.5 %
Crew	905	212	23.6 %	685	76.4 %
Total	2,222	705	31.9 %	1,517	68.1 %

Which is correct --Bkopicz3 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

William Stead's predictions

At 94 kilobytes, this article is nearly at the "almost certainly should be divided" limit. At present four sections adhere to the summary style, with links to a longer, main article. Could the five-paragraph section on "The 'Predictions' of W.T. Stead" perhaps be treated in the same way? It seems to be too long in relation to its subject. For example "Sinking", surely a key section, manages with only four paragraphs and a link. William Stead has his own article, with a less comprehensive section "Death on the Titanic". I suggest expanding this, with a link from here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, no objections. I'll move the majority of this passage to the main article and add a {{main}} template, possibly today. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being a bit slow there. The whole thing was a direct lift from the prior page (confirmed by wayback machine) here and a WP:COPYVIO. Deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The cold-water Labrador current went farther south than usual in 1912

This fact has been stated many times and there are many references that support the statement. The Weather Channel and the National Geographic magazine are two reliable sources for example. In 1912, the cold-water Labrador current went farther south than it normally did. Even though the Titanic went south to try and avoid icebergs, the crew did not know exactly how far south they would have to sail that year to be on the safe side. They just sailed as far south as ships normally went to avoid icebergs. It was not enough for 1912. The Labrador current is not constant and has been known, (esp. since 1912), to go much father south than normal, which can be very hazardous to ships, unaware of how far south it has gone, bringing icebergs with it. Also, when the cold water Labrador current meets the warm-water North Atlantic current, fog has been known to form, hiding the bergs from ships that do not have radar. I think this fact should be added to the article on the Titanic. I tried adding it, but, was unable to do so. Bennett Turk 204.80.61.110 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsinkable?

Contrary to popular belief, snopes.com released interesting evidence that the public DID in fact think Titanic was unsinkable.

http://www.snopes.com/history/titanic/unsinkable.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.97.30 (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not sure what to make of it all. I was reading the section on Legends where it talks about Titanic being unsinkable, yet two paragraphs above it states that the notion of Titanic being unsinkable was a reason for passengers' reluctnace to board lifeboats. Bs9tmw (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a possible inference, but the text reads "reluctant to leave the apparent safety of the ship". Not necessarily incompatible with the referenced "unsinkable not thought of until afterwards" suggestions in section 7.1. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

John Coffey, did he exist?

There are many who doubt the existence of John Coffey who is supposed to have left the ship at Queenstown (Cobh). Apparently his name is not on the crew or passenger list. Can anyone provide verifiable proof (other than just a link to another website which may or may not be accurate). Coolavokig (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the 1911 Census of population went online with census details for Cork City & County earlier this month, I have looked for the name John Coffey and found one person of this name living in what was then Queenstown (Cobh). The John Coffey in question was aged 26 and lived at Belvelly on the Great Island, in the rural district of Queenstown. It appears that an occupation for the person concerned was filled in originally but then corrected and left blank. This does not conclusively prove the story to be true, but does give it some more credence than previously existed. (see http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Cork/Queenstown/Belvelly__part_of_/405405/) Coolavokig (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the movie was a great movie which made everyone feel and know the impact of this tragic happening ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.166.223 (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

where the titanic sank

the titanic sank at 43 degrees / 43mins north / 49 degrees / 56 mins west / north alantic ocean / titanic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.177.22 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Animals On Board

As the matter of fact, there where animals on Titanic. Earlier that day, April 15, 1912, there was a dog show on the first class. Few hours later, when the ship hit the iceberg, after realizing that the so "unsinkable" ship was going to go down, many men ran to the lower deck and released the dogs from the kennels, but mostly of them drowned.

A French bulldog, Newfoundland dog, Chow, Airdale, Pomeranian and Pekinese were some of the dog breeds on board. The animals were on the lower deck and some of them where on the rooms of the owner. The owners of these animals paid for their transportation, but rats (over 2,000) took a free ride.

Francis-Millet noted with some irony that the ladies in first class "carried tiny dogs and lead husbands around like pet lambs." Is surprising that many women took their dogs, leaving their husbands to drown with nearly 2,000 rats.

As the dogs from the lower deck, that mentioned above, mostly of them drowned, one a black Newfoundland dog named Rigel, was able to swim until the rescue ship, Carpathia, arrived. Survivors in one lifeboat were way too weak to shout when the ship was about to run them over. But Rigel who had been swimming in the icy water for three hours, was still strong enough to bark. Captain Rostron heard the dog and ordered the ship to stop. Swimming in front of the lifeboat, the dog led the survivors to the starboard gangway.

Rigel's owner was the first officer of the Titanic, since he went down with the ship, Jonas Brigg, a sailor on the Carpathia adopted the dog. Rigel was called a hero and did not seem to have any ill effects from the disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.108.12 (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?

I was reading this article with great interest. The detail of this article is brilliant. I was so engrosed in reading this that I managed to spot a slight contradiction. In the section Maiden Voyage, it says that there were 2,240 souls aboard whereas in the table in the section Survivors, victims and statistics it says there were 2,223. I'm assuming the second figure is correct but as my knowledge of the Titanic is limited I thought i would mention it on here instead yettie0711 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 2,223 comes from the U.S board of enquiry, compiled from the crew muster and passenger lists. The British enquiry, using the same information, arrived at a total of 2,201. 2,240 isn't strongly referenced and does seem wrong. Could definitely do with a bit of work. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A previous, archived discussion here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

National flag

The flag icon has been missing from the infobox for a while, but has just been reinstated. At the time of the maiden voyage the Blue Ensign was flown, and not as now shown. AFAIK it was the only version ever used. Earlier discussion now archived, here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed, with ref. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I just thought it looked odd with the flag of the company showing and no national flag. Happens I picked the wrong one. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating it in the first place.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

nmhnmn

n,

Not much of an objection. Given value is properly cited and very close to this source: [3]. Removing geodata-check tag. Gregbaker (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

please change "adverse weather conditions" under causes section.

Under the heading "adverse weather conditions" you have "The weather conditions for the Atlantic at the time of the collision were unusual because there was a flat calm sea, without wind or swell. In addition, it was a moonless night. Under normal sea conditions in the area of the collision, waves would have broken over the base of an iceberg, assisting in the location of icebergs even on a moonless night.", which makes it clear that the conditions were only adverse in the sense of being too calm. Please change the section title to "adverse (overly calm) weather conditions" or something similiar. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adverse+weather —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "adverse weather conditions" is questionable because it is somewhat misleading. According to the evidence given during the British Inquiry, those responsible for the navigation of the ship were well aware of the calm conditions, for several hours before the collision. They also knew they were approaching an area in which ice had been reported. (Second officer Lightoller's testimony at the British Inquiry.) In other words, there were reasons to proceed with caution. Their failure to proceed with caution is one of the Titanic mysteries which has never been adequately explained.

During the Inquiry, there were several witnesses who attempted to justify the practice of full speed navigation in ice conditions by claiming that dangerous icebergs could always be identified, in darkness, at distances of about one to two miles. However, there was hardly any cross examination of those witnesses with regard to specific details of the iceberg sizes or shapes - nor of the techniques they used to measure the actual distances of the icebergs they claimed to have sighted at night. (How did they estimate their distance off, in darkness, when they couldn't know the size of the berg they were observing?). During the Inquiry, Captain Rostron of the Carpathia was one of those who claimed to be able to see icebergs at night. However, while in the rescue area, he stated that he was unable to see one of the larger bergs, (only about a quarter of a mile away), until morning twilight had begun. He could offer no explanation for that and the Inquiry did not question him further on the subject. Norloch (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Engine specification?

In the article under the section "Construction" one can read the following: - "She was equipped with two reciprocating four-cylinder, triple-expansion, inverted steam engines "

My first reaction to this was, can they really have been inverted? After some research on the internet I have found no source saying that and from the look on pictures it is clear that the engines were not inverted in any sence of the word. So in what way do editors of this Wiki-article mean that the engines were inverted? Please explain or edit the text for me.
http://titanic-model.com/articles/tech/TechFeatureFeb2006.htm
JasonCW 21:45, 1 September 2009 (CET)

No, I can't see any justification for this. As a confirmed user, be WP:BOLD! --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I got the impression that I could not edit the article... I was wrong! JasonCW 23:12, 1 September 2009 (CET)

Protection for this article?

OMG administrators shall semi-protect the RMS Titanic article because there were too many vandalisms committed by IP addresses/anonymous users. (Japee (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please edit

Would some one with an account please correct the continous mispellings of the word artifact in the section about the rediscovery of the wreck. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.3.220 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Artefacts is the correct spelling in British English, see WP:ENGVAR. Benea (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As well as colour and harbour. Shinerunner (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And continuous :) WhaleyTim (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then let's change it to proper American English. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

These links, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Enforce American or British spelling, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Standardize spellings/Archive, might help answer your question. Personally, I live on the border with Canada and seeing British spelling in an article doesn't faze me. Shinerunner (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Artefact & artifact are both correct alternative orthographies ( spellings ) used throughout the world. It has nothing to do with specific countries. I hope you're not afraid of ketchup versus catsup ! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.62.159 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2009 (GMT)

A ship is not a female

This article refers to the Titanic as a 'she'. I may not be a native English speaker, but I know objects cannot be referred to as males or females, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be written from a sea farer's point of view, no matter how much they see their ship as a female. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a long tradition, and not just among seafarers, of referring to ships as "she." Never "he" and rarely "it". It shouldn't be a problem. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem, it just looks ridiculous. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you learn English and come back in a few years?

Ships always have been referred to as she. The Titanic was a famous ship. She struck an iceberg during her maiden voyage ( note the use of maiden ! ). We all know what happened to her next : she sank & most of her crew & passengers drowned. She is still famous. Her tragedy still haunts us. Countries are also often personified. And cars ( Come on, Bessy ! ) -- :) 76.209.227.99 (talk)

Both "she" and "It" may be used, but their usage should be consistent per WP:SHE4SHIPS. In the case of Titanic, "She" is used. I've heard that "He" is used in Russia, but I can't back that up. --WillMcC (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What time zone?

It is written under "Explanatory Notes" the following: Times given are in ship time, the local time for Titanic's position in the Atlantic. On the night of the sinking, this was approximately one and half hours ahead of EST and two hours behind GMT.
But the difference between GMT and EST is five hours. So what time zone is used for the times written in the article? --BIL (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

mistaken reference.

Reference 87 is not correct. It's an article about traffic flow, nothing about the Titanic.Srotor (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Location of Belfast

The boatyard that built the Titanic was in Belfast, Northern Ireland, please note that this is a separate country to Ireland/Eire as quoted and linked to in this article. Can someone correct that? 136.8.152.13 (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Pedro : Chat 09:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The shipyard was not in Northern Ireland at the time. That country did not exist until 1927. Belfast, Ireland is correct. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Drydock photo

It's been debated in the past about which ship it is in the Drydock photo. I've always said it was Olympic and it should be stated so. It's not harmful to the Titanic article since both ships were of the same dimensions give or take a few inches. But the proof is in the picture itself. In this photo the ship's waterline has not finished being painted yet and reveals still remaining grey paint(from her launch) that hasn't been covered over by the red anti-fouling paint which evens out the waterline. The grey paint in b/w photo shows up white. Titanic was never painted grey as she was given a black luster for her launch. Well anyway, should is it safe to state Olympic on this particular photo? Koplimek (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We would need an independent source that says just this, and AFAICR this was one of the problems when this last came up. As user:Koplimek says, the caption is OK in its context. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New Titanic?

Shortly after the film "Titanic", there were at least a dozen people who claimed they were going to build a new replica of the Titanic. A few said they would be ready for the 100th anniversary of the sinking (2012). Are any of these people still pursuing it? If so, please add a URL. If not, maybe a word or two about how these efforts failed. 74.100.48.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

The Titanic was built with fairly basic accomodation and facilities for the majority of the passengers and crew. The 'luxurious' aspects of the ship were only available to a relatively small number of first class passengers. It would be extremely difficult to build an exact replica which complied with modern construction standards and modern passenger expectations. I think that a replica would just be a sort of 'pastiche' cruise ship - pretending to be the Titanic - but not very convincingly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.232.146 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read there are currently no active plans to build a replacement. One main reason stated is the design of the original Titanic wouldn't pass current safety guidelines. There would have to be considerable modifications so that a replacement ship would look different. Another reason is a cruise line is in the business to make money and with the exception of some diehard enthusiasts there probably wouldn't be enough interest to make it a financially viable pursuit. Shinerunner (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are companies that offer cruises on replicas of 19th century schooners. People pay big money for not much in the way of amenities. I think the same would be true for a Titanic replica, even with the necessary safety changes. What's stopping someone from building a replica for use as a museum? It would be docked permanently (like the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dates

Why don't we put April 14, 1912 or April 15, 1912 instead of 14 April 1912 or 15 April 1912? I think it would be better. Japee (talk)

It's the British style. See MOS:DATE#Full date formatting for more. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ah ok. I didn't know that. Japee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

Explanatory notes (Titanic time)

Times given are in ship time, the local time for Titanic's position in the Atlantic. On the night of the sinking,
this was approximately one and half hours ahead of EST and two hours behind GMT.

User BIL picked up on this over a month ago, but no-one responded. The New York inquiry settled on Titanic time as being 1 hour 33 minutes ahead of New York time (EST), so "approximately one and a half hours" will do, but EST is 5 hours ahead of GMT, so Titanic time was three and a half hours behind GMT. Rambler24 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Titanic Destroyed

exactly as a page would be, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.187.180 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What? JeremyWJ (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another way those on the Titanic could have been saved

Charles Pelligrino in his book, Her Name, Titanic, mentions something I've never heard anywhere else. He says that if someone would have thought to open the water-tight doors that were closed upon hitting the iceberg, the ship would have settled evenly into the water. This, according to Pelligrino, would have allowed the ship to stay above water until the Carpathia arrived. As it is, going bow first, the water was allowed to burst through the openings in the anchor chains, the windows in the staterooms, etc. Makes sense to me. Of course, everyone was in shock, especially the engineer/builder (can't remember his name just now) who would probably have been the first to think about it. As Pelligrino points out though, ordering those doors open would have been one tall order for a sinking ship, no matter how logical the reasons. Goes to show how thinking outside the box can come in handy.

68.229.129.32 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This point might be worth considering but, to prove it, would require some very detailed calculations by someone who had access to the Titanic's plans and hydrostatic/stability tables. Allowing all the watertight compartments to flood concurrently would surely have created a considerable "free surface effect". ( "free surface effect" could be described, very roughly, as the loss of ship stability caused by large areas of water slopping around inside the ship. The ferry "Herald of Free Enterprise" is a notable example of a passenger ship which lost stability, due free surface flooding, and then capsized very quickly.) Other factors to consider would be the consequences of red hot furnaces, in the boiler rooms, being being subjected to low temperature sea water. It's hard to say if that would have caused catastrophic damage, but it would have made the engine compartments untenable.Norloch (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There would have been very little "free surface effect" as the conditions were described as "dead calm", and water wouldn't have been slopping around inside the ship. The water rose gradually in the five holed compartments. Furnaces in boiler rooms 5 and 6 were in holed and flooding comapartments in any case. It wouldn't have made any difference whether the engine compartments were untenable or not, the engines were stopped before hitting the iceberg. Rambler24 (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I recall seeing this theory tested on a scale model on television many years ago. The model ended up listing and overturning 30 minutes faster than the normal sinking. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't remember any details, channel etc. do you? I'd like to explore this further, if only to refute the suggestion. The " would have sunk later" theory is not one I subscribe to. I was simply answering the points made above. Closing the watertight doors immediately was the obvious (and correct) reaction from the officers, and they wouldn't have been praised for using their initiative in what would have been in any case a risky experiment, and going against instructions and required practice. However, what I do find interesting is the suggestion that the Titanic might not have sunk at all if she'd struck the iceberg head on. It's possible (maybe likely) that only two or three compartments would have flooded. At the very least, Carpathia and possibly other ships might have reached Titanic before she sank. Rambler24 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, it was a very long time ago. All I can remember is that it was a scale model, and at first appeared to sink evenly, but then listed after a while and eventually cap-sized early. It did, however, only seem like one experiment, and it was a model. And I've also read a lot about the head-on collision. It would have likely flooded less compartments than the side collision. There's also a fair amount of circumstantial things that would have apparently saved the ship, things like the watchmen not having binoculars or not having their eyeglasses with them. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Rambler 24 - There have been a several instances of ships capsizing due to free surface effect - despite the fact that they were in 'dead calm' conditions. (One notable example was the liner "France" which capsized while she was moored in New York harbour in 1942.) It's extremely difficult to keep a floating vessel absolutely upright and if a ship heels over - even very slightly - large areas of free surface water, inside the ship, will indeed slop to the low side and cause the ship to heel over more and more. There were varying eyewitness reports on the Titanic with regard to heeling. Some reported the ship was heeled to port slightly. At different times others reported a five degree heel to starboard. As I said above, it would require some lengthy calculations to prove that a large free surface would not have had an adverse effect on the operations to abandon ship. Flooding the engine compartments concurrently might not have caused the Titanic to capsize but, if the consequent free surface effect caused the ship to heel over by twenty or thirty degrees then the organization and lowering of the lifeboats would have become very much more difficult. Leaving the speculation aside - it would be an interesting addition to the article if some really dedicated editor was willing to do the calculations to prove the case!! With regard to the other point - about the untenability of the engine room - this has nothing to do with the main engines - the important thing was that the electrical generators in the engine room were providing lighting throughout the ship. The engineering staff of the Titanic have rarely received the credit due to them for their efforts in maintaining the ship's lighting for such a long period. As I noted above it's hard to say if flooding all the boiler compartments would have caused catastrophic damage but, it seems a possibility that generator power would have been disrupted much sooner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norloch (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor nit-pick: SS France (1912) caught fire in Le Havre January 1933. It was SS Normandie that caught fire and capsized from the free surface effect of trapped water at a New York berth in 1942. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor point it may be re- 'Normandie' - but well noted anyway! Apologies for that - shouldn't have been typing faster than I was thinking!Norloch (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Only spotted it because it was on TV last week. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a comprehensive paper (72 pages) on the flooding of Titanic: "C. Hacket & J.G. Bedford: The Sinking of the S.S. TITANIC — Investigated by modern Techniques. The Northern Ireland Branch of the Institute of Marine Engineers and the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 26 March 1996 and the Joint Meeting of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, 10 December 1996."

Although it's somewhat rediculous to re-open water-tight doors because this increases the flood-rate in any case the authors have analysed this as it was mentioned as a possibility in the BOT report. The effect would have been a power loss approx. 60 minutes after the collision due to flooding of the boiler and engine rooms. Furthermore Titanic would have developed a considerable heel which in addition to the power loss would have had a catastophic effect on the evacuation. Finally the Titanic would have capsaized approx. 120 minutes after the collision. --DFoerster (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thickness of the hull

Surprisingly... no mention of it in this huge artice. Specification sources are non-internet. ~ R.T.G 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point—added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not unsinkable! Cheers for that. ~ R.T.G 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now switched from journal to book source: both references were already in use elsewhere in this section, but the book gives more space to the issue and offers the better context. Sorry for any confusion.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

There is no consistency in the use of the name of the ship here. The ship was not "the Titanic" but Titanic. That was the name she was launched with, and painted in various places about the ship, and on her lifeboats. It's correct to use the definite article when for example discussing something concerning the ship, as in "the Titanic disaster" or "the Titanic memorial". In such cases "the" refers to the disaster or the memorial, and not to the ship. It's not just acceptable, but correct to refer to "the RMS Titanic" as it's a shortened form of "the Royal Mail Ship Titanic". However, it's not uncommon to see for example "the HMS Ark Royal". Expanded this becomes "the Her Majesty's Ship Ark Royal" which is a nonsense of course. I'd be willing to clean up the inappropriate uses of "the Titanic" in the article. Apart from anything else, I find constant use of "the Titanic" tedious. Ramble24 (talk • contribs)

You might find it tedious, but it isn't incorrect. British merchant ships have always used the definite article. "The Titanic" is what she was, just as the Queen Mary was/is the Queen Mary. But as you say, confusion arises when people mistakenly apply it to naval vessels. Ark Royal was Ark Royal, not THE Ark Royal. There was further confusion when well-known merchantmen were temporarily absorbed by the navy. Then they dropped the "the". On their return they tended to keep it off, by habit more than anything. Rumiton (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another notable person NOT on the Titanic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Hershey#Titanic:

"In 1912, the Hersheys were to travel on the ill-fated British luxury liner RMS Titanic. However, they cancelled their reservations because Mrs. Hershey was ill at the time. Instead, they booked passage to New York City on the German luxury liner Amerika. The Hershey Museum displays a copy of the check Hershey wrote to the White Star Line as a deposit for a first class stateroom on the Titanic."

This is not mentioned in the article about the RMS Titanic and should be added to the "Maiden Voyage" section alongside the mention of J.P. Morgan's cancellation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlamrhein (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really deserves entry, there were numerous people who missed the Titanic. The Hersey's missed it out of normal sickness, if anything the premonitions people had of the ship sinking are more noteworthy. J Morgan's case is more unique that while the Titanic was loaded with rich people, along with the Astor's he was among the riches in the country. More importantly though, as head and owner of the IMM, he was the owner of the Titanic, and as owner/business partner was supposed to travel on this voyage, then canceled at the last moment(which is what feeds fire into the damn conspiracy theories) Morgan himself was supposed to occupy the other suite on B deck with the private promenade(Ismay having the other), but it went to Charlotte Drake Cardezza after he canceled his trip. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RMS Titanic schematic and watertight compartments

This article still doesn't have a schematic showing the make-up of the ship. See http://www.cruiseweb.nl/images/dwarsdoorsnede/Titanic.jpg for an idea about a schematic. KVDP (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Would an actual blueprint be better? There's tons circulating around and I don't think there's a copyright on them. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've indefinitely semi-protected this article. It is a high-profile article which unfortunately gets a lot of vandalism from IP editors. Therefore it is regrettably necessary to apply this level of protetion. Semi-protection for shorter periods has only led to a return of the vandalism by IP editors once the semi-protection expired. In saying this, I note that some IP editors have made constructive edits, or reverted vandalism, for which I thank them. An IP wishing to add constructively to the article can post their suggested changes on this talk page, and if they are seen to be constructive they will be incorporated into the article. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Lifeboats - Lifeboat Number 12

I beleive there were more than two lifeboats that went back to pick up survivors.

According to Encyclopedia-titanica.org: John Thomas Poingdestre (Poindexter), an "Able Bodied Seaman" was in charge of lifeboat number twelve. When the Titanic sank, this lifeboat was no-where near capacity, but Poingdestre went back and gathered survivors. Lifeboat # 12 had 70 people aboard when it was picked up by Carpathia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.210.38 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the lifeboats?

Just wondering what actually happened to the lifeboats one the crew where rescued? left to float away? are there any that survived? Bankhallbretherton (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Carpathia had to unload them before she could dock in New York. Most plausible theory is that they were towed away and left to rot. They were apparently photographed a short while after the Carpathia unloaded them. No-one really knows. Rambler24 (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is really sure, they were left at the White Star pier in NYC after the Carpathia arrived. There's speculation due mainly to this photo http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/images/WSL_Olympic%20%28PC_lifeboats%29.jpg of the Olympic at White Star pier in Southampton with lifeboats in the foreground that the Olympic took them back to Southampton. Judging by the amount of lifeboats on the Olympic's boatdeck you can tell it's either pre-Titanic or right after Titanic. The lifeboats would not have been left to rot as they were all in perfect working order, and were probably placed aboard other ships, quite possibly even the Olympic eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadcapSyd (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of lifeboats

On the subject of lifeboats is it worth noting that the regulations for the number fitted wasn't based on only saving first class passengers etc. It was on the assumption that the boats would be used to ferry survivors to other ships and that a ship would take a considerable time to sink. Before organised air-sea rescue there was no assumption that the passengers of a shipwreck in mid-ocean would make it back to land unaided in lifeboats. Although the invention of radio was beginning to change this. --Nobody314159 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the lifeboat capacity was based on the ship's weight, or perhaps her displacement. Walter Lord discusses this in either A Night to Remember or The Night Lives On. --Badger151 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Total solar eclipse

The source given is another WP page, which isn't allowed. It says the vessel sank two days before a solar eclipse in Spain and France, which doesn't seem particularly relevant (although, of course, I may be missing the significance). The relevant information regarding the new moon is contradicted by some printed works. Proposing deletion, but adding a new, reliable source for the state of the moon. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a silly idea - that wikipedia can't cross reference - as if a person can't confirm a fact from the other page's sources! It was a partial solar eclipse across the entire atlantic, so the survivers would have seen it if it was clear. But the important fact of course is that it was new moon, making it a dark night to see icebergs. I only linked the eclipse because it was a notable coincidence. I'll add a direct reference to make you happy. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My happiness or otherwise isn't the issue but no, that doesn't make me happy—where's the relevance here? If it had been two days later, if the vessel had been on track for South America and not New York, if the weather were clear, then the survivors may have had an opportunity to see it! More on this at WP:TOPIC: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Old Moonraker, what we need here is a reference that explicitly links the eclipse as being significant to the disaster, otherwise this is WP:OR. Did the fact there was a partial solar eclipse in the area on 17 April affect in any way the lighting levels for the night of 14 April and so possibly become a contributing factor to the collision and sinking? If there are references that posit this, then this can be stated explicitly and sourced. If the eclipse was merely incidental to the fact there was a new moon and otherwise had no impact on lighting levels that night, this is merely some associated trivia that has no relevance to the sinking and by bringing it up, we are implying that it did. Benea (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevent fact is new moon the night of the sinking. The eclipse two days later is just a fact the coincides because solar eclipses can only occur at new moon. Edit as you like. But doing a google search I find references:

[4] astrology ref - Titanic Solar Eclipse 17 Apr. 1912

[5] The "Titanic" eclipse of 17 April 1912 - The last annular eclipse in the Netherlands was 17 April 1912, just two days after the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank.

[6] - The Annular Solar Eclipse on 17. April 1912 - It is Wednesday morning, 17. April 1912. The newspapers report that at the North American coast the English giant steamer "Titanic" is understood collided with an iceberg and in sinking. All passengers were saved.

It is Wednesday morning, 17. April 1912. The newspapers report that at the North American coast the English giant steamer "Titanic" is understood collided with an iceberg and in sinking. All passengers were saved.

[7] - On the 17th of April 1912, just a couple of days after the Titanic sank, there was an annular/total eclipse that tracked across Europe. The track of annularity crossed the city of Paris, where the annular phase was a maximum of 99.54% leaving just 0.46% of the Sun left. This was the first central eclipse track to cross the city since the total eclipse of the Sun in 1724. The event was commentrated in Le Petit Journal... SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see a little more clearly now. The occurrence of the eclipse was coincidental and did not have an effect, though papers and later sources that reported the event mentioned both of them together as they were newsworthy events occurring at a similar time and in the same general location. Currently the wording is 'The moon was not visible (being two days before new moon and a total solar eclipse)' - this makes a fairly strong implicit statement that the moon was not visible because it was two days before a new moon and a solar eclipse, whereas the moon was not visible because it was two days before a new moon, and incidentally two days later there would a solar eclipse. This mention of the solar eclipse needs removing lest we create the false impression the lack of light and hence the collision, and the solar eclipse where in anyway related.Benea (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping make it clear. Good compromise! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We are getting somewhere, but I still can't derive "being two days before new moon" from the citation given. Either I'm being dense, or a high degree of interpretation is required to get there—either is possible. Can anybody explain how it works?--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess being into astronomy, interpretation was obvious. A solar eclipse can only occur at new moon, so the date of the eclipse is the date of the new moon. Two days before new moon, the moon's phase will be a tiny waning crescent, rising only about about an hour before sunrise, not visible during the time of the collision where moonlight could have made a difference. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's clear and helpful, thanks. In fact, it throws new light on the relevance of the eclipse which I hadn't grasped before (but, please don't bring it back!). Now, how to make this plain for the less astronomy-minded general reader? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of Passengers

I am re adding this to the Talk Page due to the fact that it went unanswered.

As per RMS Titanic the passenger total was

Category	Number aboard	Number of survivors	Percentage survived	Number lost	Percentage lost
First class	329	199	60.5 %	130	39.5 %
Second class	285	119	41.7 %	166	58.3 %
Third class	710	174	24.5 %	536	75.5 %
Crew	899	214	23.8 %	685	76.2 %
Total	2,223	706	31.8 %	1,517	68.2 %

but as per Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic they are

Category	Number Aboard	Number of Survivors	Percentage That Survived	Number Lost	Percentage That Were Lost
First Class	324	199	60.5 %	130	39.5 %
Second Class	285	119	43.8 %	153	56.2 %
Third Class	708	174	24.5 %	536	75.5 %
Crew	905	212	23.6 %	685	76.4 %
Total	2,222	705	31.9 %	1,517	68.1 %

Which is correct? Originally Posted--Bkopicz3 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Reposted --Bkopicz3 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this question is likely to forever remain unanswered, as researchers don't know, and are unlikely to find out. --Badger151 (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Labrador current went farther south in 1912 than normal

In 1912 the cold-water Larador current which carrys icebergs from the Artic down to the Atlantic and keeps them from melting, went farther south in 1912 than normal. The Labrador current has been known to carry icebergs as far south as 150 miles from the coast of Bermuda, 30 degrees north. This was a factor in why the Titanic sank, according to the Weather Channel (When Weather Changed History series season 2, and a National Geographic television documentary that examined reasons for the Titanic hitting the iceberg and sinking so fast. The Labrador current went farther south than normal and the crew of the Titanic thought they had sailed south enough to avoid icebergs, when they hadn't. This fact should be added to the article. Here is a reference that supports the paragraph heading. http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=377 The part about 'the Meandering Labrador current' is very important and proves the arguement.204.80.61.110 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Bennett Turk

I believe it would be misleading to cite the extent of the Labrador current as a significant factor. It couldn't really be stated that there was ever a "normal" situation, so far as that current and the southerly drift of ice was concerned. The pilot books and charts, for the period, did note "average" areas where ice would probably be encountered, in most years, but they also warned that the extent of ice varied greatly from year to year and that caution was always required. So far as the specifics for Titanic are concerned there isn't any evidence that they thought they had sailed far enough south to avoid icebergs. On the contrary, the evidence given at the British Inquiry indicated that they knew that they were approaching an ice region and, according to the testimony given by Second officer Lightoller, they also estimated an approximate time when they would encounter that ice. (Lightoller's estimate was that they would be in the vicinity of the ice at about 2300 hours on the night of April 14th. He told the Inquiry that he had advised First officer Murdoch of this estimated time when Murdoch came on watch at 2200 hours.) Norloch (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

These two paragraphs contradict one another:

Yet another factor in the high death toll that related to the lifeboats was the reluctance of the passengers to board them. They were, after all, on a ship deemed to be "unsinkable". Because of this, some lifeboats were launched with far less than capacity, the most notable being Lifeboat #1, with a capacity of 40, launched with only 12 people aboard.

Contrary to popular mythology, the Titanic was never described as "unsinkable", without qualification, until after she sank.[6][98] There are three trade publications (one of which was probably never published) that describe the Titanic as unsinkable, prior to her sinking, but there is no evidence that the notion of the Titanic's unsinkability had entered public consciousness until after the sinking.

70.138.107.74 (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The second statement is sourced, but the first isn't. A {{citation needed}} tag added, to see if we can find where this information came from, otherwise it's original research and liable to deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Annihilatorx has given this a fix, along the lines you suggest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On p. 18 of The Night Lives On by Walter Lord, ISBN: 0-380-73203-3

"On June 1, 1911, along with its account of the Titanic's launch, the Irish News and Belfast Morning News ran a follow-up story headlined 'Titanic Described.' This included a detailed account of the ship's 16 watertight compartments and the electrically controlled doors that connected them. 'In the event of an accident, or at any time when it may be considered advisable, the captain can, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughout, practically making the vessel unsinkable'"

Lord goes on to quote from an article in Shipbuilder magazine from June of the same year where the vessel was again described as "practically unsinkable" while Shipbuilder might be regarded as a trade publication the Irish News and Belfast Morning News would not be. I do not have an account and therefore cannot edit the article, but I believe that there is significant evidence that Titanic was regarded as unsinkable before her voyage, and the article should reflect this.

The original article is already quoted, but not directly cited. Can you add the original source here, using a {{Template:Editsemiprotected}} tag, for inclusion? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also a contradiction in the number of passengers aboard. 2,223 is quoted but also in the maiden voyage section it says 'When she finally set out for New York, there were 2,240 people aboard'. Is this last statement correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.201.247 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rudder

I believe the rudder text as written is a lot of nonsense. As it is always assumed the rudder was ineffective. Just to remind everyone, the Olympic had the same rudder and in 1918 turned on a dime to avoid a German submarine and later sink it. The rudder in the text is said to be that of the style of a 19th century sailing ship which is the point. That style of rudder was so streamlined for it's effectiveness that Harland & Wolff continued it on practically all of the ships they built. The rudder was not changed to Olympic and Britannic after the disaster. The Cunard ships had a square rudder as they had a four-prop design. We don't know everything that happened on the bridge. I believe Quartermaster Hichens, a trouble prone person, when ashore, may not have turned the wheel over all the way. Just me saying but the rudder shouldn't be blamed. The info on the rudder should be re-written or deleted. 64.26.97.254 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't re-write it: it's a quote. However it is countered, using much the same reasoning as given here, in the following sentences. Is there a reliable source to show that H&W carried on using the style because it was so effective? If so, this could be added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: more on this to be found in an old discussion here.--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Koplimek here(my message above 64.26.97.254). H&W did continue on building counter stern ships after the disaster even though counters were disappearing after WW1. Some of the German yards continued with 'counters' and the sailing ship style rudder. Cruiser sterns were started in naval ships before WW1 and continued on through the war. Ken Marschall, Titanic painer, stated on tv show "Titanic: Death of a Dream" that if Hichens had just turned the wheel over and Murdoch had not reduced the propellers they would've missed the berg. Possibly? If Murdoch had told Hichens to turn the wheel hard over then she 'might' have struck the berg amidships with one or more compartments open to the sea. No problem she could float with any four compartments open. But she could not float with water rising and spilling over bulkheads into other compartments. The flooding was not the problem. Controlling the flooding was the problem. The rudder was basically streamlined for drag efficiency. In EE O'Donnell's "Last Days of the Titanic" priest Frank Brown was on the Titanic, Cherbourg-to-Queenstown and took pictures of the ship's wake as Captain Smith was making tight turns(this had not been done in Belfast). Brown got off the ship at Queenstown and took his photos with him to tell the tale. After seeing the Brown pics I wouldn't say the ship had a problem turning quickly with that rudder. No, something went on on the Bridge that we dont know about. Koplimek (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not true that Titanic was able to float with any four compartments open. This is true only for the first and the last four compartments in calm weather. Generally she was designed to float with any two adjoining compartments open. Furthermore I see no reason why the extend of damage should have been less if the collision would have taken place amidships at higher speed. The contrary is more probable: Damage to many boiler and even engine rooms would have made the outcome much worse. Be aware that to aviod the iceberg a porting around manouver was necessary. If that had not been the case the vessel would have been puntured by the iceberg over its full length. --DFoerster (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to think anything odd went on on the bridge. The pictures Father Brown took were en route from Cherbourg to Queenstown, it's safe to say the Titanic was not travelling at the near 22 knots at the time as it was when hitting the iceberg. There's also no way to gauge time from pictures, one must remember there was only 37 seconds before siting the berg and hitting it. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that there are 'no reasons to think that anything odd went on on the bridge'. In fact there were a number of oddities in the story which seem to have been accepted or ignored without further investigation. It's odd that First Officer Murdoch stood his watch almost entirely on the starboard bridge wing. There was a comment about that in the summation of the British Inquiry but no explanation was suggested. ( It's worth noting that the starboard bridge wing is a good place to position yourself if you are experiencing, or expecting, intermittent fog or mist.) Another oddity is that, according to Ismay's evidence, the intention was that the ship would berth at New York on the forthcoming Wednesday. On that basis, Titanic was actually ahead of schedule on the night of the collision. It would have been necessary to slow down to arrive on Wednesday. That raises the question of the reasons they had for proceeding at speed as they approached an ice region. Then there's the odd matter of the fourth officer and the stand-by quartermaster. In the circumstances, why weren't they on the bridge as supplementary look-outs? Yet another oddity is that we accept that everyone acted instantly when the iceberg was sighted. That may be what witnesses claimed to have happened but, in reality, instant reactions are fairly unusual in unexpected situations. There were many oddities. It would be an easy option to explain it all with the accusation of widespread complacency but, perhaps that would only be one further oddity!Norloch (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the bridge wing was the obvious place for the officer of the watch to be, with no glass in front of him to restrict his vision. There was no forest of masts in front of him, so staying on one side was not a problem. Evidence has been given that standard practice in 1912 when entering a known fog/ice area was to get through it as quickly as possible. It may look like odd behaviour today, but wasn't then. Also given the clear night, three sets of eyes on watch probably seemed more than ample. I agree that his reaction probably wasn't "instant." Not many things are. The OOW's only crime that night was that he disobeyed Rule Number 39 (unwritten.) This is the one that says "Don't have a collision." For if you do, and the results are spectacular enough, people will be analysing your every action for...maybe centuries. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also add to this that the Titanic was steaming under a crystal clear sky, in dead calm water, and absolutely no ice had been spotted yet. Junior officers not being on the bridge was in fact the norm, there's nothing odd about them not being on the bridge at one particular moment. Officers have to do other things then look and direct the quartermaster while on duty. And yes the Titanic was ahead of schedule, in fact there is good reason to think that the next day they would've done a full out speed run to see exactly what the Olympic class ships were capable of. Many people have thought, and was put into the movie, that they were going to arrive in NYC on Tuesday night as a surprise, but this wouldn't make sense as the ship would've had to wait in Quarantine all night long as ships didn't dock at night. Monday probably would've been a full speed run to be able to public boast how fast the ships could go, while Tuesday on the approach to Long Island and the coast probably would've been a slower leisurely stroll so to say to New York.69.37.89.6 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have noted Murdoch's decision to locate himself on the starboard bridge wing in more detail. Early warning of fog or mist, during darkness, becomes apparent first - on the starboard side. The first few wisps of vapour show up in the beam of the starboard (green) sidelight before they can be seen in the beams of the other lights - (especially if the mist is intermittent and low-lying). The starboard wing would be a logical place to stand if they were experiencing mist patches. (even Lord Mersey thought it rather odd that Murdoch didn't move back and forth between bridge wings.) As to the evidence of standard practice in 1912, I'm not so sure that evidence given at the Inquiries was conclusive. (Lord Mersey certainly made some wry comments about it.) The witnesses were all very careful to qualify their testimony by specifying "clear" conditions when proceeding in ice regions (but they were never asked how they predicted that conditions would stay clear). Nor was evidence sought from anyone who had experience in command of very large, fast, vessels. It's notable that Captain Haddock - the only person alive who had command experience on both Titanic and Olympic - was never called to testify, or to give a deposition, on the subject. Norloch (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton's mention of Rule 39 (unwritten) is appropriate - though I think, rather than, Rule 39 " don't have a collision ", it might be even more appropriate for Rule 39 to state - " If you do have a collision, make sure that there are no loose ends or anomalies in the story - because it's inevitable that people will then be analysing every detail, for centuries !" With regard to the rudder, I believe Koplimek's point, above, is relevant. In the circumstances, the rudder design wasn't a significant contributory factor. Norloch (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If Rule 39 merely said you have to do all the right things, it would just be repeating what the other rules say. Rule 39 is an independent rule which stands alone. It states that YOU MUST NOT HAVE A COLLISION, not ever, for if you do, nothing you did in the preceding 4 hours or so will suffice to exonerate you, and suspicion and speculation will accompany you for all the remaining days of your life and into the hereafter. I know I'm starting to sound like the Ancient Mariner, but a thousand court cases show that in practice it really does work that way. I have never seen a Court of Enquiry where the outcome was, "The OOW did all the right things and was entirely blameless for the collision." If he had a collision then he broke Rule 39, even if he followed all the other rules. Rumiton (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did the info on green light showing up fog better than red come from? I never heard of that before. (Not disputing it.) Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ref. green light query - noted it from personal experience ( in bygone years, I used to be saddled with the nickname "Foggy"!). Don't know the full technical explanation for it, but I believe it's related to the longer wavelength of red light. Norloch (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Foggy (kidding.) It's an interesting observation, but In Wikipedia terms would count as original research which would be unacceptable, unless you can find a reputable source that tells us it was part of the normal practice of seamen at the time. Rumiton (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton; - Not sure that it could count as 'research' (original or otherwise). The phenomenon was certainly known among the crusty older generation that preceded me, on ships. (I know that from a few occasions when I remarked on it, during my younger days.) Don't know if it was ever noted in print. It was an item of information that became less relevant with the improved reliability of marine radars and forecasting. Maybe it should just be classed as a forgotten piece of sea lore. Norloch (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps so. I remember those "crusty" old guys quite well myself, and their sometimes imponderable nuggets of sea wisdom. Anyway it is not a factor for this article unless we have a source that mentions it. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reason for not berthing at Queenstown (Cobh)

It is suggested in the article that Titanic did not berth at Queenstown because the harbour facilities there were inadequate. While she may not have been able to tie up at the Deepwater Quay in Queenstown at low tide, it was normal for ships such as the Mauretania and Lusitania to come right into the harbour and moor opposite the town. There is some suggestion that the reason she didn't do that was nothing to do with facilities but as a time-saving exercise. Instead she moored near the mouth of Cork Harbour while passengers and mail were conveyed to and from Titanic on board local tenders. Coolavokig (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Lusitania or Mauretania(pre-Titanic) coming in close to the Deep Quay in Queenstown. This area got a lot of attention when the Lusitania was lost in May 1915 and her lifeboats and survivors were brought here. The area was subsequently well photographed at this disaster. Certainly the Titanic was significantly larger than the Cunard duo with the Olympic being nearly the same size(dimensions mainly not tonnage) as the Titanic. There are no pictures or data that shows Olympic coming to the DW Quay or even close to it throughout 1911, her first year in service. The Olympic apparently anchored offshore most likely at the behest of the Queenstown pilots and/or harbor master. Pilots are expected to know the depths, currents and shifting bottom of a given stretch of water used as a commercial passageway. I don't know about Queenstown but some American waterways like the Mississippi and New York harbor at the opening of the Hudson River experience constant changing sediment levels so that it is imperative for a pilot to know what size ship can navigate either of those given bodies of water. This may have been the experience of the Queenstown pilots and Queenstown harbor simply was not deep enough or so thought the pilots, harbor master and other like officials.Koplimek (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)