Page 25 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 25
the water would then have been able to run over the top of the bulkhead between Nos. 5 and 4, even if it had been carried up the deck higher than it was. 20371. You mean to say that if the wound came as far aft as No. 5, carrying up the watertight bulkheads to D deck, that would not have saved this ship? - That is right, and that was the real point altogether of that plan. 20372. (The Attorney-General.) It is only carrying it up to D? - Yes. The Commissioner: If it had been carried up to C deck, the ship would have been saved or might have been saved? The Attorney-General: Yes, I think it would. 20373. (Mr. Rowlatt.) Did you hear my Lord’s suggestion, that if you could have carried the watertight bulkheads up to C deck the ship might have been saved? - Provided that there was not the damage I believe there to have been in No. 4, but if the damage existed in No. 4 it was only a question of delaying it perhaps an hour - this damage that we were referring to a few minutes ago. 20374. (The Commissioner.) If you could by pumping have kept the water in No. 4 under control, then it would not have mattered? - If you could have done, but the evidence is that it rose in spite of their pumping, my Lord. I have no doubt that the engineers in No. 4 were doing their best to pump. 20375. Were there any sluice valves between No. 4 boiler room and No. 3? - Does your Lordship mean in the watertight bulkhead? 20376. Yes. - Nothing whatever. The watertight bulkhead was not pierced by actual watertight pipes. 20377. It is suggested to me that if there had been sluice valves the water in No. 4 might have been allowed to flow from No. 4 to No. 3, and so on, to the afterpart of the ship, and that the pumps then would have been able to get it under control? - Your Lordship will remember that the watertight bulkheads are in coal bunkers. A sluice valve is only a small watertight door, and it would mean putting the watertight door in the coal bunker, which is even a worse thing than having a watertight door for trimming the coal through, to which you were taking so strong objection earlier in the day. It would be very difficult to keep a watertight sluice valve in condition inside the bunker. 20378. Are sluice valves put in ships now? - I believe they are in some warships. I do not think they are often put in merchant ships. 20379. Are they put in merchant ships at all? - Not to my knowledge; it is not our practice at any rate. 20380. Now I want to ask you a question, not upon this point, but it has been suggested to me; you know the hatchway in No. 1 hold? - Yes, I know it. 20381. Now suppose that hatchway had been trunked from the Orlop deck to the G deck, would that have been of any advantage? You will remember that immediately after the accident water was seen coming through that hatchway, and that it went down into the tunnel? - But we have had evidence that at an earlier time it was seen in the bottom of the tunnel, coming up. 20382. Yes, but what I want to ask you is whether it would have been an advantage if the hatchway had been trunked, by which I understand made watertight, from the Orlop deck up to the G deck? - I do not think in this case it would have made the least difference, because the water, as we know, was going into No. 6 boiler room - I think, if your Lordship will look at the last plan I put in (flooding plans D and E) it shows that the water is above D deck at the extreme forward end, and therefore would have gone down the hatchway instead of coming up from below. 20383. There is a suggestion made to me - I am not sure that I quite appreciate it - but the suggestion made to me is that, if the hatchway had been trunked, the life of this ship would have
   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30