Page 66 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 66
of the ship into real effective watertight compartments must be, in my opinion, the main factor to be relied on. Finally, in order to prevent abnormally-sized boats being placed under davits in an effort to cram the entire capacity required into the number of boats that a vessel must have under davits, I submit that a Rule might be made by which only one-half of the additional capacities shown in the three-fourths column may be allowed to be included in the boats which a vessel must carry under davits as per scale. Any other boats which might be needed to contain the balance of the three-fourths column may, of course, be placed abreast any of the davits as convenient. I may mention here that the ‘Lusitania’ and ‘Mauretania’ have their entire capacities made up in 16 boats, each with a length of 30 feet and equal to 600 cubic feet; they are very heavy, and difficult to handle. I further submit that those boats which may contain the three-fourths additional capacity should not be larger than 500 cubic feet, as it is very desirable that boats not regarded as being under davits should be of such a size as to be fairly readily shifted, and any boat longer than 28 feet would be cumbersome under such circumstances.” That is the letter of recommendation that I sent to the Marine Department on March 3rd. 23358. (Mr. Scanlan.) I think you said you had indicated on a Minute what increase you were to recommend, or the scale. Have you the scale? - Yes, I have it here. 23359. What did you recommend in the scale for vessels of 45,000 to 50,000 tons gross? 23360. (The Commissioner.) I do not understand his scale went that far? - Yes, my Lord, I attached a scale. 23361. I thought you limited your consideration to vessels of 25,000 tons? - No, my Lord, that was in a comparative statement which I attached, showing how it was that although the tonnage of a passenger ship might very largely increase, it did not follow that the number of passengers increased in proportion, and, consequently, I made this table out to show that between 15,000 and 25,000 tons gross the passengers carried were at a maximum. After 30,000 tons they decreased, relatively. 23362. At a maximum compared with the tonnage? - Yes. 23363. (Mr. Scanlan.) These are the reasons for the recommendations you made. What were your recommendations for ships of the size of the “Titanic”; how many boats in the first place? - For a vessel of the tonnage of the “Titanic” say from 45,000 to 50,000 tons gross, twenty-four boats under davits. 23364. (The Commissioner.) Of what capacity? - With a capacity of 10,900 cubic feet. How much is that? Mr. Scanlan: What cubic capacity for each boat? The Commissioner: About 500, is it not. 23365. (The Attorney-General.) Rather less. The Witness: 454. 23366. (The Commissioner.) Twenty-four boats under davits with a cubic capacity of 10,900 feet? - Yes. 23367. What else did you reckon? - Then there would be the three-fourths additional to go on to that, which would bring it up to 19,075 cubic feet. 23368. As much as that? - Yes. 23369. (Mr. Scanlan.) You allowed three-fourths, regardless of the boats to be carried, to make up that three-fourths - collapsibles or rafts, or whatever the Board of Trade would approve of? - Yes. 23370. But what would have been provided if effect had been given to your recommendation? There would have been lifeboat accommodation for 1,975 persons. Am I correct? - 1,090 for the 24 boats actually under davits. 23371. Yes, and with the three-fourths additional? - Then we should have a space for 1,907 persons. That is up to 50,000 tons gross. Then for 50,000 tons and upwards, 26 boats, with a capacity of 11,000 cubic feet. The Commissioner: You need not trouble about that. Mr. Scanlan: No, my Lord. (To the Witness.) Can you give us the views expressed by the other
   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71