Titanic (was Re: Nineteen Things.....)

[pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Sister Mary Lunatic" <klaatu at p...> 
wrote:

[snip]

> Thought for the day:
> Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that amateurs built
> the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

<Professor Binns-mode>

Wherefore it is a good thing that the Ark ran in temperate waters, 
free of icebergs.  The Titanic wasn't that bad (it even had more 
lifeboats than required by regulations, though I'll concede that the 
number *was* to have been greater but was reduced due to financial 
constraints), and the ark most likely would have gone down just as 
fast, if not much faster, when presented with the same level of 
damage (be it nominal or relative).  Most civilian ships built today 
are probably less survivable than the Titanic.  

The fact that the Titanic did not capsize (which would have resulted 
in a far greater death-toll), but stayed on an even keel is in itself 
quite a miracle, not accomplished particularly often today.  Most 
recent passenger-ship catastrophes have involved the ship capsizing, 
with great loss of life (M/F Estonia (1994), M/F Herald of Free 
Enterprise (1986?), M/F Jan Hewelius (1991, uncertain about the name 
there).

The Titanic-disaster was, IMNSHO, brought about by gross negligence 
and incompetence on the part of the bridge-staff, particularly 
Captain Smith, in disregarding ice-warnings and running the ship 
during the night as if there had been no icebergs in the area.  

The effects of this incompetence were increased by the use of 
substandard steel in the construction of the ship - the steel had a 
high content of sulphur, making it very brittle.  The hull-plating 
probably shattered as if it had been glass when subjected to pressure 
from the ice-berg.  I suspect that a better quality of steel (i.e. a 
quality equal to that common on other contemporary ships) would not 
actually have saved the ship (the damage done being to the same 
watertight compartments), but the ship would have taken longer time 
to sink, as the damage would have been smaller.  The S/S Carpathia 
and other ships steaming to the rescue might then have arrived before 
the Titanic sank, making it possible to evacuate passengers and crew 
directly from the liner.

The great loss of life was in a great part due to the low lifeboat-
capacity (though still well in excess of the then valid regulations), 
but it was compounded by inefficient filling of what life-boats there 
were (so much so that three times the actual number of lifeboats 
might not have been enough to save everyone).  Reputedly the failure 
of some ships to maintain a round-the-clock radio-watch might also 
have contributed.  

</Professor Binns-mode>

(I'm studying to become a naval architect, if you can't tell)

Best regards
Christian Stubø