Page 98 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 98
finished are tested for stability, and if we find the stability was not right it can always be rectified either by more water ballast or solid ballast. 21451. So that you had that in mind when you went over the plans? - I never considered it at the time at all - not that part of it. 21452. May I put it that you would be able to correct any disadvantage in greater top weight by more definite ballasting or greater weight near the keel? - I believe so. 21453. Do you think that the entire disadvantage of making the ship tender in that way might be corrected by ballasting? - It might be. 21454. (The Commissioner.) And what would be the effect of that upon the vessel; would there be any effect upon it commercially? - If it was what you call a weight-carrying ship where you had a great deal of cargo it would tell against her, but these large liners are very seldom filled up. There is always plenty of space. 21455. I am quite uninformed about it; would it require any more coal? - Well, it would be such a small affair that it would not be noticeable. It would be likely a quarter of an inch in the draught or something of that sort. You could argue that it would be an enormous cost if you wanted to do it. 21456. But it does not occur to you? - It would never come into my ideas in thinking of the thing. 21457. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) I only wanted to put the point in a very general way. You said that you had one interview lasting a whole day, and only about five or ten minutes was devoted to the discussion of the lifeboat question, and another interview lasting four hours part of the time taken up with that discussion. Was there at any time between you and the Directors of the White Star a definite discussion as to the effect upon the safety of the ship of these much greater and more luxurious decks? - No, no discussion. 21458. No discussion at all. You have been present, I believe, when there has been some discussion taking place as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of longitudinal bulkheads, but have you devoted much attention to that problem? - Yes. I personally do not approve of anything but the vertical bulkheads. I do not approve of fore and aft bulkheads. 21459. You do not? - No. 21460. What is your idea as to the deck to which the transverse bulkheads should reach? - They are carried pretty high at present, but there is no use carrying them up above what we call the weather deck. That is here. (Pointing on the model.) They ought to be carried up to that, in my opinion; there ought to be as few doors fitted as possible, and those doors ought to be always closed at night. 21461. Can you say why in the construction of the “Titanic” the bulkheads were not carried above E deck? - Well, I could not answer that question right off; I really do not remember the pros and cons. 21462. You have already said that there should be as few a number of watertight doors as possible. What is your view as to whether there should or should not be watertight doors at all in the boiler section, that is to say, in the lower decks? - I think the doors ought to be there for the carrying on of the work of the ship, and I think it would be practically impossible to do without them. 21463. Is it not a fact that in the great warships there are no watertight doors in the bulkheads in the lower decks? - I never had the honour of building an ironclad, so I am not able to speak. 21464. You know generally? - I really could not say. 21465. Will you take it from me that that is a fact that a number of warships have bulkheads so constructed that there are no watertight doors on the lower decks? - I can quite believe it. 21466. I quite understand different reasons apply, but if that is possible on a warship why do you say it is not possible on a great mercantile ship? - Well, really, the differences are so very
   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103