Page 25 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 27 - 31
P. 25
would it have made to the area filled with water in that particular compartment? - None whatever. 25313. Why do you say that? - Because the No. 1 compartment was damaged independently, and No. 2 compartment had to be damaged in order to admit water to the bottom of the spiral stair. As to the water that was admitted to No. 1 compartment, the only difference that it would have made - it might have made this difference - is that the water would have taken a few minutes longer, three or four minutes perhaps, to get to the same level inside the trunked spiral stair than it did take. But that would only have made a difference of two or three inches to the trim of the vessel by the head, and so is quite immaterial. 25314. If the spiral staircase had been trunked in the way that was suggested, would it have been possible for water to have come over that bulkhead? - Over which bulkhead? 25315. The bulkhead abaft the spiral staircase? - Certainly. 25316. The trunking would have made no difference? - No difference. 25317. Why? - Because the trunk would only have been carried up the middle portion of the bulkhead. The sides of the bulkhead were just in the same position as before. 25318. It was not proposed to trunk it all the way along? - Not for the whole width of the ship, as I understand, but round the two spiral staircases. That takes about one-third of the width of the bulkhead and leaves about two-thirds over which the water could flow. 25319. You were also asked this. Perhaps I had better read you the letter. In 1910 you were asked by Mr. Chantler: “I am to state that the following information, as supplied in a previous case by the builders of an unusually large steamer, which greatly facilitates the consideration of these cases, should be furnished, namely, curves of buoyancy, complete curves of load, of shearing force, and of bending movement as applicable to the ship when on the crest, and also in the trough of a wave of her own length, corresponding to the conditions of leaving port, and of arriving at the end of a voyage, with coals consumed.” In reply to that letter you say: “With regard to curves of buoyancy and load, showing also curves of shearing force and bending movement mentioned in the second paragraph of your letter, following our usual practice, we have not made out this information in the form you desire to obtain, nor have we found it necessary to do so for previous large vessels, and, as you are no doubt aware, the calculation of it is a very laborious process, and would occupy at least three months. Accordingly, we trust you may be able to see your way not to press for this particular information.” And, in fact, they did not press for it? - They did not. May I say that the object of that information would be to supplement the basis on which the strength of the vessel is estimated, and which, I think, Mr. Archer mentioned as being represented by the weight displacement multiplied by the length and divided by 30. The effect of those data asked for would enable them to go into the question as to whether the 30 was exactly the correct figure or not. 25320. That might be a very important factor in determining the strength of a ship of this size? - Yes, to the extent to which it departs from 30. Our experience is that it does not usually depart much. 25321. Anyhow, the view was taken then that the mere fact of much greater magnitude might in itself effect this problem? - Not at all. 25322. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but evidently that was the view of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade at the time? - I do not think that view would be held in the least. 25323. “I am to state that the following information as supplied in a previous case by the builders of an unusually large steamer, which greatly facilitates the consideration of these cases”? - Certainly. 25324. Anyhow, the information was not supplied and they did not insist? - It was not made out.
   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30