Page 80 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 80
Mr. Clement Edwards: Your Lordship will remember that I asked one Witness and he could not quite tell. (To the Witness.) Have you any idea what would be the weight of that top deck? 23519. (The Commissioner.) I am not thinking about the weight at all. I am thinking about the registered tonnage. I suppose there is something in the top deck that would measure in the registered tonnage? - The portion of the deck erections which come above the boat deck would naturally be measured. 23520. If you abolished the deck you would abolish those? - Yes, you might abolish them. The Commissioner: This is outside this Enquiry, I think. These are details. Mr. Clement Edwards: The full point is this. It has been put by certain of the Witnesses, and the term has been used - if you unduly increase the number of boats with the view to taking off all the passengers you thereby interfere with the weathering strength of the ship by making her tender. The Commissioner: You need not ask such a question as this: If you put the boats lower down do you make the vessel less tender. Of course you do. You can go on putting them down until you get them on the Orlop deck. Mr. Clement Edwards: Yes; but I am putting a specific question on lowering the ship. The Commissioner: I am pointing out to you that I am of opinion that is a detail, and a matter that has to be taken into consideration, not by us, but by some other tribunal. 23521. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) If your Lordship pleases. (To the Witness.) Anyhow, in your view, if you did abolish the one deck - that is to say, lower the boat deck - to what is now A deck, and utilise that entirely for boats, it would not make any great difference to the weathering capacity of the ship? - No, not in a distance of about nine feet, the height of the deck. It would make a very little difference at that height. It would be an appreciable difference, no doubt, but it can be provided for in most ships - not in all. 23522. That is to say the relative weight of the one deck and a large number of boats, say, 60 boats, would not be very great? - You mean the total weight of boats and boat deck? 23523. No, the total weight of boats and boat deck together would not be much greater than the total weight of what is now A deck? - The weight on the boat deck would naturally be the weight of the boats on it, and that is all. The Commissioner: Pass on to something else, Mr. Edwards. 23524. (Mr. Clement Edwards - To the Witness.) Have you thought of any plan of providing boat accommodation apart altogether from their being placed on what is now the top deck - the boat deck? - Yes, I have gone into plans. 23525. Do you think there is any possibility of getting an effective system apart from having boats on the very top deck? - Yes. I think in certain ships it could be arranged for. 23526. What sort of suggestion would you make? - Naturally, if a vessel has two or three promenade decks, as the case may be, and she has rails round, you can have them not only on the boat deck proper, but on the deck below. 23527. (The Commissioner.) Would that be a desirable thing? - Not altogether. 23528. Would it be desirable at all, because if so, I do not know why the Board of Trade has not long ago recommended it? - We do not care about it. 23529. Then you do not think it desirable? - No, I do not, but I say I have gone into those questions. 23530. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Why do not you think it desirable? - Because you would have one boat interfering with another. You would probably have two different sets of davits. 23531. (The Commissioner.) Does any big liner carry any boats there? - Not to my knowledge. 23532. Did you ever hear of such a thing? - No, I cannot say that I have - not on two decks. The Commissioner: Then leave it alone Mr. Edwards. 23533. (Mr. Clement Edwards - To the Witness.) You are the supreme technical adviser at the Marine Department of the Board of Trade? - Yes. 23534. What Mr. Archer might recommend would you have authority to override? - Certainly, if I objected to it.
   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85