Titanic on ITV

[Peter Mugridge]

At a guess, the Radio 2 thing you mention was in real time but with the UK rather than Titanic local time zone ( otherwise nobody would be up to listen to it! ) just like the Twitter real time feed?

 

[SS4]

At a guess, the Radio 2 thing you mention was in real time but with the UK rather than Titanic local time zone ( otherwise nobody would be up to listen to it! ) just like the Twitter real time feed?

I couldn't be 100% sure since I didn't listen long enough to get more than a quick idea but it was on around midnight so I imagine it was done UK local time. Don't use twitter so not sure about their feed but I'd guess so

 

[Heinz57]

Last nights episode of Titanic was indeed the best. But still realy bad.

I noticed the distinced lack of people shivering. Did the ship even break in the episode? It didn't look like it. You seen it raising up by about 45degrees and then you see it sinking beneith the waves. Or was I just not paying attention?

Those on the bridge didn't seem at all botherd that they were coming up to and had indeed hit the iceberg. They were basicaly like 'Theres an iceberg ahead, shall we turn and put engines to reverse? What do you reckon' 'Yeah sounds like a plan, go for it' 'We've hit it. Boy is my face red!'

The whole sinking seemed rushed aswell. Its like they hit the berg and then 5 mins later all the boats have gone.

There was a docu-drama on channel 4 yesterday afternoon about the fireman, stokers, engineers etc who stayed below decks to fight the rising water and keep the lights on until the last minuites. That was pretty good.

 

[Crimson_Quiff]

Last nights episode of Titanic was indeed the best. But still realy bad.

I noticed the distinced lack of people shivering. Did the ship even break in the episode? It didn't look like it. You seen it raising up by about 45degrees and then you see it sinking beneith the waves. Or was I just not paying attention?

Those on the bridge didn't seem at all botherd that they were coming up to and had indeed hit the iceberg. They were basicaly like 'Theres an iceberg ahead, shall we turn and put engines to reverse? What do you reckon' 'Yeah sounds like a plan, go for it' 'We've hit it. Boy is my face red!'

The whole sinking seemed rushed aswell. Its like they hit the berg and then 5 mins later all the boats have gone.

There was a docu-drama on channel 4 yesterday afternoon about the fireman, stokers, engineers etc who stayed below decks to fight the rising water and keep the lights on until the last minuites. That was pretty good.

Agreed with the above comments, but there were moments in the episode that were very dramatic and captured the moment, I wouldn't say perfectly, but pretty much nail-on-head.
For instance (and to confirm Heinz57's question) when the ship's stern end broke away from the front 'half', it was more focussed on the Italian chap frantically looking for his friends. In the 199-blip film with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, the moment the ship snapped in two - it was focussed on the ship itself. In last night's episode, all that was going on the background. It was as if you were in the water with them, watching on as this occured. Chilling stuff. Preferred it to the film, in all honesty.

 

[SS4]

The whole sinking seemed rushed aswell. Its like they hit the berg and then 5 mins later all the boats have gone.

Perhaps that's because the sinking was a minor inconvenience in the generic period drama aboard the RMS Titanic?

 

[GearJammer]

I watched this, when the lifeboat went back to look for survivers there did'nt seem to be many bodies in the water compared to the film?

Also i had to chuckle when the fella in the lifeboat went back for survivers.... he shouted 'is anybody out there?' i thought wait a second fella.... i believe Kate Winslet should start blowing a whistle any second now lol

It was'nt a bad series over all tho, it was watchable.

 

[LE Greys]

Agreed with the above comments, but there were moments in the episode that were very dramatic and captured the moment, I wouldn't say perfectly, but pretty much nail-on-head.
For instance (and to confirm Heinz57's question) when the ship's stern end broke away from the front 'half', it was more focussed on the Italian chap frantically looking for his friends. In the 199-blip film with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, the moment the ship snapped in two - it was focussed on the ship itself. In last night's episode, all that was going on the background. It was as if you were in the water with them, watching on as this occured. Chilling stuff. Preferred it to the film, in all honesty.

I reckon they actually got that wrong anyway. The way they showed it in the film, the stern would have fallen back flat, then inevitably rolled over and sunk on its side or even inverted. It actually stood up vertically. Now I don't know what snapped where, but I reckon what they did here (and in A Night to Remember, which I watched recently) made a lot more sense.

 

[Heinz57]

Also i had to chuckle when the fella in the lifeboat went back for survivers.... he shouted 'is anybody out there?' i thought wait a second fella.... i believe Kate Winslet should start blowing a whistle any second now lol

I thought that too, he sounded just like the guy in the film!

I reckon they actually got that wrong anyway. The way they showed it in the film, the stern would have fallen back flat, then inevitably rolled over and sunk on its side or even inverted. It actually stood up vertically. Now I don't know what snapped where, but I reckon what they did here (and in A Night to Remember, which I watched recently) made a lot more sense.

I don't know, I've seen a few documentries which discussed the sinking, the break up and they all show how it would have risen verticaly. One also says that as it bobbed up verticaly, and then sank it would have been sort of rotating.

It was also going at some speed when it hit the bottom, which is why the stern is completley un-recognizable. As aposed to the bow which is remarkably intact.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The difference in the state of the two halves of the wreck is also partly down to the structure; the bow hit pointy end first ( evidenced by the way the sediment lies around her plus the way she sank ), in other words the strongest part hit first - and in such a way as to buffer some of the impact from the rest of the forward half.

On the other hand the stern will have landed on the weakest part first - where the hull split apart, meaning there was nothing to absorb the impact with the result of the decks collapsing on top of each other.

It is no great surprise she split if you think about the leverage force on the keel of the stern half lifting out of the water - a keel is not designed for that extent of stress, only for the normal stresses of hogging and sagging in the water.

 

[Skoodle]

There was a James Cameron documentary recently on one of the discovery channels, it was made this year. He got a team together and tried to work out exactly what happened. Naval architects made a virtual model and they believe that the stern would have reached a maximum of 19°. They also think that it was the water column rushing down behind the stern that caused a lot of the damage (down draft). Cameron even admitted that now he knows that he got write a fair bit wrong in the film.

 

[GearJammer]

There was a James Cameron documentary recently on one of the discovery channels, it was made this year. He got a team together and tried to work out exactly what happened. Naval architects made a virtual model and they believe that the stern would have reached a maximum of 19°. They also think that it was the water column rushing down behind the stern that caused a lot of the damage (down draft). Cameron even admitted that now he knows that he got write a fair bit wrong in the film.

Can you tell me what this programme was called please, sounds interesting id like to watch it?

Also when did somebody last go down to the TITANIC, did any underwater dives happen for its 100th anniversary to show what state it is in now? Assuming that it is rotting away down there im assuming that at some point there will be very little left of it?

 

[Skoodle]

It was called "Titanic, the final word with James Cameron" on national geographic channel.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Skoodle]

Apparently he's done around 30 dives down to the wreck which is incredible!

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Heinz57]

Apparently people are worried about the wreck, they've been saying because its the 100th aniversery and theres a lot of interest around it it won't do it any good.

How? Diving down thousands of feet to the Titanic isn't exactly something you could get up and do any day of the week. How is it gonna cause it more stress?

That documentry you mention sounds interesting. I'll have to have a look for it. I don't have Discovery so I'm hoping someones chucked it onto YouTube, or elsewhere on the web.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBrGgzC_Luo

 

[Heinz57]

Nice one mate, cheers for the link. I'll watch that later

 

[ainsworth74]

How? Diving down thousands of feet to the Titanic isn't exactly something you could get up and do any day of the week. How is it gonna cause it more stress?

The whole wreck is slowly rotting away and eventually it will collapse into a pile of rusty sludge, there is therefore the concern that the disruption of the water around the wreck by submarine propellers or by ROVs moving about on the inside of the wreck could accelerate this deterioration. I personally don't think it's an entirely unfounded concern.

 

[junglejames]

I watched a program on titanic a few years ago and it listed off the mistakes in design and its operation, it was insane.... Cant believe that anyone ever thought it was a good idea.

Rules and regulations were quite lax back then. Plus peoples attitudes were very different. Thankfully, if anything good came out of Titanic, it was SOLAS (Safety Of Life at Sea).

The most interesting i found is that it turned better at higher speeds and it is thought that if he had put it on full forward instead of reverse and turned he would of cleared it easily.

Yep. All vessels will alter course quicker at full speed, as you have a better flow of water over the rudder. You just cover more ground though.
It all depends how soon after ringing full astern, he altered course though. If he had only just rung full astern, it wouldnt have made an awful lot of difference, as there would still have been a fair lick of speed.

One error though. You say if he put it full ahead then altered. I believe he was already going full ahead, but even if he wasnt, you dont speed up first. You alter at the speed you are going. Waiting for a vessel to speed up will take too long, and the increased rate of turn wont make up for this.

When trying to avoid something, altering course is always the best idea. Everything else is pretty much a last resort.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Apparently if she would have ploughed full on into the front of the iceberg, she wouldn't have sank then either. Because it would have only flooded the first two compartments.

Doesnt matter how many watertight compartments she flooded, because the fault with the titanic was that the watertight bulkheads didnt go right up to the watertight deckhead. Therefore water could flood over the top of one, and into another. This is actually what caused her to sink. I dont believe she holed enough watertight compartments originally.

There is a small chance she wouldnt have sunk if she hit the iceberg head on, but the biggest difference is it would have taken a lot longer to sink, had she gone down.

 

[LE Greys]

Rules and regulations were quite lax back then. Plus peoples attitudes were very different. Thankfully, if anything good came out of Titanic, it was SOLAS (Safety Of Life at Sea).

A high price to pay. Why does it always take a disaster to act as a wake-up call?

Yep. All vessels will alter course quicker at full speed, as you have a better flow of water over the rudder. You just cover more ground though.
It all depends how soon after ringing full astern, he altered course though. If he had only just rung full astern, it wouldnt have made an awful lot of difference, as there would still have been a fair lick of speed.

One error though. You say if he put it full ahead then altered. I believe he was already going full ahead, but even if he wasnt, you dont speed up first. You alter at the speed you are going. Waiting for a vessel to speed up will take too long, and the increased rate of turn wont make up for this.

When trying to avoid something, altering course is always the best idea. Everything else is pretty much a last resort.

Something I had to learn about motorboats is that screws push water, rudders just direct it a little bit. The Olympic-class rudder design was barely sufficient for the ship's size, possibly because nobody had ever designed something that big before. Maybe they should have gone for full reverse on the port engine, full ahead on the others (if they could be adjusted independently).

 

[junglejames]

A high price to pay. Why does it always take a disaster to act as a wake-up call?

Good question. Probably because sometimes it isnt obvious what is wrong, until you see it for yourself.

Maybe they should have gone for full reverse on the port engine, full ahead on the others (if they could be adjusted independently).

Would have taken too long at that speed. Using the rudder is much quicker.

 

[ainsworth74]

Doesnt matter how many watertight compartments she flooded, because the fault with the titanic was that the watertight bulkheads didnt go right up to the watertight deckhead. Therefore water could flood over the top of one, and into another. This is actually what caused her to sink. I dont believe she holed enough watertight compartments originally.

You're partially right. The issue was that due to the weight of the water causing the bow to sink lower into the water it was possible for the flooding inside to cascade over the top of the watertight compartments. Titanic was designed to be able to survive with four compartments flooding, in that scenario the bow would not be lowered enough to allow water to flood over the top of the watertight compartments. The design of her watertight compartments was flawed only in the sense that they didn't anticipate damage across five compartments.

 

[Heinz57]

...the fault with the titanic was that the watertight bulkheads didnt go right up to the watertight deckhead. Therefore water could flood over the top of one, and into another. This is actually what caused her to sink.

This is true, the bulkheads did not go high enough. However, same as Ainsworth74 says, the Titanic was designed to stay afloat with up to four flooded. When she struck the iceberg, the damage also breached the fith compartment.

After the incident, the bulkeheads on Olympic and Brittanic were raised a few more decks up. If they would have been this high on the Titanic in the first place she would have been either able to limp to nearest land. Or stay afloat long enough for a ship to arrive and get everyone off safley.

If she would have struck head on, damaging the first two compartments. The water would have not had enough weight to drag the bow down enough to flood more and make her sink.

A testiment to this is the Olympic. When she collided with the Hawke it created a massive hole in her side, completley flooding two compartments. And as we know she didnt sink

 

[table38]

From the "you couldn't make this up" section of the BBC News website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17756036

Sinking ship slide 'in bad taste'

 

[LE Greys]

This is true, the bulkheads did not go high enough. However, same as Ainsworth74 says, the Titanic was designed to stay afloat with up to four flooded. When she struck the iceberg, the damage also breached the fith compartment.

After the incident, the bulkeheads on Olympic and Brittanic were raised a few more decks up. If they would have been this high on the Titanic in the first place she would have been either able to limp to nearest land. Or stay afloat long enough for a ship to arrive and get everyone off safley.

If she would have struck head on, damaging the first two compartments. The water would have not had enough weight to drag the bow down enough to flood more and make her sink.

A testiment to this is the Olympic. When she collided with the Hawke it created a massive hole in her side, completley flooding two compartments. And as we know she didnt sink

And the Britannic only sank because she had portholes open. Even though she hit a mine, which did a tremendous ammount of damage, she would have remained afloat under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, being the middle of a Mediterranean summer, lots of people had left their portholes open (which is not allowed at sea) which left the hull leaking like a sieve as she settled down. Luckily, there were plenty of lifeboats this time.

 

[RPM]

Luckily, there were plenty of lifeboats this time.

And relatively few people onboard. It would have been a very different story had Britannic's wards been full of injured servicemen.

 

[Heinz57]

Also, there were only a few people that died. And that only happend because they panicked, launched there boat before orders were given and went straight into the spinning propellers.

Unfortunately, being the middle of a Mediterranean summer, lots of people had left their portholes open (which is not allowed at sea) which left the hull leaking like a sieve as she settled down. Luckily, there were plenty of lifeboats this time.

You know I read on Wikipedia somewhere that open port holes added to the Titanic going down to quick. I don't beleive that for a second, for a few reasons. First, middle of the atlantic, middle of the night, freezing cold - Whos going to have the port hole open? Second, I've never read it in a trust worthy source.

I think the person who posted that must have been mistaken.

Didn't the Olympic and Brittanic end up with enough lifeboats that in the event of a list preventing boats from being launched on one side, there is enough on the oposite side to save everyone? Or am I mistaken?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There is an interesting story in our local paper this week, re-printing old eyewitness reports to mark the anniversary.

Survivor Marjorie Collyer specifically stated that one of the musicans, after the band finished playing the final piece of music, jumped into a lifeboat with his instrument.

I thought all eight members of the band went down with the ship, therefore this must have been an ordinary passenger who had an instrument with him that she saw?

 

[Heinz57]

All of the band members did indeed go down with the ship. So your right, it must have been a normal passenger.

There are all sorts of stories relating to those that went down, for example Captain Smith. Some say he was last seen heading towards the bridge and he was never seen again after that. Altough others state that he was spotted diving into the water just as the bridge went under. He was said to have been spotted clinging to a peice of wreckage in the water. Its also said that he swam to a lifeboat with a child in his arms, handed it over to those on board before swimming away. His body was sadly never recoverd and we will never know exactly what his final actions were that night.

There's also many theories surrounding the ship itself. One of which states it was an ancient mummies curse.

Although the most interesting of which is that some people reckon it was actualy the Olympic that went down and not the Titanic. They state that after the Hawke Incident, they altered the Olympic to look like Titanic and visa versa. They then set it up to puposly sink the ship to claim the insuranse. And that Titanic actualy served a long career as the Olympic. Although theres a bit of convincing evidence to support this (and I myself did actualy beleive it for about a week) there is much more that contradicts it.

There's even a theory came out this week claiming she sank because there we too many ginger people on board.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I've heard the cursed mummy story - but wasn't that eventually debunked in that the mummy in question was not on the Titanic after all?

 

[LE Greys]

Also, there were only a few people that died. And that only happend because they panicked, launched there boat before orders were given and went straight into the spinning propellers.



You know I read on Wikipedia somewhere that open port holes added to the Titanic going down to quick. I don't beleive that for a second, for a few reasons. First, middle of the atlantic, middle of the night, freezing cold - Whos going to have the port hole open? Second, I've never read it in a trust worthy source.

I think the person who posted that must have been mistaken.

Didn't the Olympic and Brittanic end up with enough lifeboats that in the event of a list preventing boats from being launched on one side, there is enough on the oposite side to save everyone? Or am I mistaken?

According to the link below, the method they used was to add extra-large davits to the stern, enabling boats to be lowered on either side, or to be transferred over. The porthole issue might have been the Andrea Doria, which capsized after a collision off Long Island. I believe that was midsummer, and so it's quite likely that some passengers would have had their portholes open.

http://www.thegreatoceanliners.com/index2.html