Page 65 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 65
have been caused by the machinery falling forward when she got tipped up considerably. Do you think there is anything in that? - The boilers might have moved; I do not think the machinery did. The Commissioner: It was thought the boilers had got loose from their seats. 20916. (Mr. Laing.) Yes. (To the Witness.) Is that a reasonable theory? - When the ship was about 35 degrees by the head. 20917. That might have happened? - When the bow was down so that her stern was up, so that the slope fore and aft of the ship was about 35 degrees. Mr. Laing: The question of her breaking in two has been referred to. I do not know whether I need go into that. The Commissioner: I do not think you need trouble about that. 20918. (Mr. Laing.) There is another matter about the boilers which occurs to me. The fact that the electric lights of this vessel remained burning up to the moment almost that she disappeared, does that indicate anything to you as to the condition of the boilers? - It indicates that one boiler room, most probably No. 2, was still supplying steam to the emergency dynamos. 20919. There is evidence that certainly one, and I think two, of the funnels fell? - Yes. 20920. I think the evidence is that the forward one and the after-one fell? - Yes. 20921. What would account for that? - The funnels are carried from the casings in the way of the comparatively light upper decks - that is, the boat deck and A deck. When these decks became submerged and the water got inside the house, the water would rise outside much faster than inside, and the excessive pressure on the comparatively light casings which are not made to take a pressure of that kind would cause the casing to collapse; would take the seating from under the funnel and bring the funnel down. 20922. With regard to the expansion joint which has been described to us in the upper works of this vessel, somebody suggested that that might have caused the weakness or the breaking of the vessel. Is there any foundation for that? - No; the expansion joints go down to the strong deck and are made to save the light upper plating from the stresses. 20923. Can you assist us at all as to the maximum speed the “Titanic” would be likely to develop? - When everything had got into good working order, and the staff got used to the ship, in fine weather I think she probably would have done about 23 1/4 knots. 20924. Would that require the whole of your boiler power? - Oh, yes, every boiler. 20925. With regard to the engines, how many of Harland and Wolff’s staff were on the ship for the voyage? - Nine. 20926. Nine altogether? - Nine altogether. 20927. Including Mr. Andrews, who was practically the designer? - One of our managing directors and eight others. 20928. And I think none of them were saved at all? - None. 20929. There is a small point to clear up. Did you ever have these boat falls tested? - I have had them tested since the statements that have been made in Court that they were not considered sufficient. 20930. And what was the result of the test? - As has been mentioned in Court there are 12 parts of the fall to each boat, and the results of the test were that a single section stood between 5 and 5 ½ tons. There were 12 parts, and therefore that means that the falls passing through the blocks were good for something like 60 tons. 20931. And the boat with its complement would weigh what? - About 5 ½ to 5 ¾ tons. 20932. Another reference occurs in the evidence to the effect of moving the people across the deck with the view of correcting the list. I think Mr. Lightoller told us about that; have you made any experiment to see what effect moving a number of people would have? - We have made an experiment to test the ship’s stability, and from that it is possible to calculate the effect. 20933. I think you have made the calculation? - Yes.
   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70