Page 149 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 149
24487. Four lanterns? - I think I would be inclined to have a lantern in every boat. 24488. In that respect at least, you think the regulations might be with advantage altered? - Yes. 24489. But you still think that four compasses and four masts and sails are sufficient? - Yes. Mr. Pringle: May I ask a question, my Lord? I promise not to take long. I was referred by Sir Walter Howell to this Witness as to his experience as a naval architect. Examined by Mr. PRINGLE. 24490. Are you a naval architect? - Yes. 24491. What experience have you as a naval architect? - I was for about seven years, or rather more, from 1891 to 1898, naval architect in the employment of Messrs. James and George Thomson, Limited, Clydebank, Glasgow. The Commissioner: He comes from your country. 24492. (Mr. Pringle.) It was in 1898 that you joined the staff of the Board of Trade? - Yes. 24493. As a naval architect you will have an opinion upon the effect which would have been introduced, had the bulkheads been extended to deck D instead of only extending to deck E. Can you express an opinion on what would have been the effect in the case of this disaster if the bulkheads had extended to deck D instead of only extending to deck E? - I desire to point out first that many of them did extend to deck E. 24494. Yes, the aft bulkheads did? - Yes. If the forward bulkheads had extended to deck D the vessel would have floated longer. I am not able to say how much longer. 24495. You would not express an opinion as to the additional time. Would the extension of the bulkheads, together with the trunking of the hatchways, not combine to still further increase the time? - I do not think the trunking of the hatchways would be of any use. 24496. (The Commissioner.) Let me put this question to you, Mr. Archer. Do you think the “Titanic” would have been safer if the bulkhead B had been carried up to the next deck? - That would be to C deck, I think, my Lord; it already goes to D deck. 24497. What do you say? - It would have been safer under certain eventualities, but not any safer under the damage that was done to her on this occasion. 24498. You do not think so? - Not in the least. 24499. Now, would she have been safer if No. 1 hatchway had been trunked up to the A deck? - I think not. 24500. (Mr. Pringle.) You say that you did not insist on the extension of these bulkheads in view of the alteration of the loadline disc? - Yes. 24501. What effect has that in relation to safety, the fact that there was an alteration of two inches or so on this disc? - It is this; the vessel is not allowed to load any deeper than the centre of the disc. Therefore, if you lower the disc a few inches, the top of the bulkheads is so many inches higher above the water than it was before. 24502. Is that a consideration which would have any very material consequence in the case of a ship like the “Titanic,” which is not a cargo steamer? - I do not quite understand the purport of your question. 24503. I thought in a ship like that, which does not carry cargo, you are not in the habit of loading to the loadline at all? - I think passenger vessels very often load to the loadline.
   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154