A new book on the Titanic

[CatInASuit]

A novelist whose grandfather was the senior surviving officer from the Titanic is revealing the truth of what occured on that fateful night. As she is the only person, who is left who knows the family secret, she has decided that she will tell all.

She is the granddaughter of Charles Lightoller, the Second Officer and the person in charge of the Port side lifeboats. According to her, 2 errors took place. Firstly, the iceberg was noted in advance, but due to a miscommunication in steering orders they turned into the iceberg instead of away from it. Secondly, the ship's owner persuaded the Captain to continue sailing slow ahead, which forced water through the tear in the hull overloading the bulkheads. If she had stayed still, she could have floated for a lot longer. The reason why Lightoller lied to the Board of Enquiry, was that if he admitted the truth, the White Star line would have been liable putting it out of business and bankrupting its owners. Apparently the story was passed down from her Grandmother through the family.

So, what do you think? A likely event or just publicity for a new book.

If true, how will this affect the other versions of the story already told.
If it is just publicity and found to be so, should any charges be placed against her for slander?

More details here if you are interested

[Zuul]

Oddly, I was reading about the Titanic and specifically about Charles Lightoller just the other day.

Based on what's been seen of the ship in its final resting place, the bit about forcing water through the hull sounds plausible, though I don't know if it's the most reasonable explanation. I don't know enough about steering such a ship to say whether or not her explanation of the miscommunication would make sense.

My initial response is that whether it's true or not this is a scummy move of her, though. Maybe not entirely rational, but either she is lying and tarnishing her grandfather's name or else she's betraying his secrets for profit. If she truly believed this was what happened and that the world needed to know, there are better ways of doing that then writing a novel "revealing the truth."

[Sarahfeena]

Yeah, I got excited when I saw the title of your thread here, but I'm reluctant to read a book that sounds like it's a smear job, so long after the events and when everyone is dead. My first question would be, how much did anyone, even those who were there, really remember or understand the sequence of events as they played out that night? And how much of that story might have been altered or confused as they filtered down through the family? Even if it is all true, I wonder why she would want to do this to her grandfather?

[Nrblex]

The book isn't a smear job. The book is about a guy who survives the Titanic. It actually sounds like it spends very little time on what happened on the ship and would probably simply use the granddaughter's claims about what happened as background rather than a central aspect of what was going on as the ship sank. After all, the passenger who is the main character wouldn't know these details.

[CatInASuit]

I disagree, I would say she is sacrificing her grandfather's reputation to sell more books.

It may not appear much in the story plot, but if it is being used to sell books, then it becomes a little more distasteful.

[Zuul]

If it isn't appearing in the plot, then isn't the only reason to even bring it up at all to sell out his memory for publicity? It almost seems worse this way. If she wanted the truth known, exposing it like this was just a little too self-serving. Privately talking to groups who have studied the tragedy and letting them decide whether the family story had merit--and comparing it to what documents and evidence they have--seems like it would have been better.

[Clothahump]

If true, how will this affect the other versions of the story already told.
If it is just publicity and found to be so, should any charges be placed against her for slander?

More details here if you are interested

Given that we are coming up on the 100th anniversary of the event, it's nice to have new light shed on it.

One of the more interesting theories that I have read is that the damage done to the ship by the berg would have been minimal if the metal composition of the hull and bolts would have been specified to handle sub-freezing conditions. Apparently, there is some question that the super-cold waters of the Atlantic caused the metal to fracture far worse than should have occurred by specification. That's something I'd like to see followed up on.

[terrifel]

Well certainly if I thought my grandfather had lied to conceal an error that cost the lives of 1400 people, I would want to set the record straight in the clearest and most historically respectful way possible: by writing a fictionalized account and incorporating it into my latest novel. I think that'd be anybody's first instinct, really.

Curse this infernal writer's block that prevents me from revealing my own family secrets! I'd give anything to be able to re-panel the basement, but it's not going to happen while Judge Crater is still down there.

[Zuul]

Given that we are coming up on the 100th anniversary of the event, it's nice to have new light shed on it.

One of the more interesting theories that I have read is that the damage done to the ship by the berg would have been minimal if the metal composition of the hull and bolts would have been specified to handle sub-freezing conditions. Apparently, there is some question that the super-cold waters of the Atlantic caused the metal to fracture far worse than should have occurred by specification. That's something I'd like to see followed up on.

I've heard this about the steel, too. I'm not sure where I read it originally, but I was able to find a post on another board that says basically what I remember. Looks like the theory was reported on PBS and the BBC.

The steel used to construct Titanic was rather brittle. Today's steel would have bent more easily, thus resisting complete failure better than Titanic did. Even for its day, Titanic's hull contained more sulphur than usual, which contributed to its brittleness.

The point of failure on the hull was at the steel rivets, which, when a 90 degree sheer was applied to them, caused them to pop out like popcorn. The method of creating rivet holes at that time was known as "cold stamping," which involves a cutting machine ramming the steel when it is cold. This process creates microscopic cracks at the hole, which made it that much easier for the rivets to pop loose. Modern rivet holes are made while the steel is still hot, when riveting is used at all.

So a combination of unusually brittle steel in water too cold for that composition with the rivets may be responsible for turning a setback into an epic disaster.

[OtakuLoki]

A couple of points.

First off, I don't find the woman's claim to be all that credible about the steerage for the ship.

Titanic was a pig. A wallowing, aimless pig. Luxurious, and fast, but her rudder was undersized for her mass. More than that, her triple screw configuration left the ship with fewer options for using torque generated by backing one or more screws to generate a turn than a more traditional two or four screw configuration would have offered.

Even without the reasons that I claim that Titanic was a pig, such ships do not turn quickly. The general rule of thumb I recall is that it will usually take a mile, or more, for a large vessel to begin to respond to the helm. Now, it is possible that a mistaken helm order was given, and that delayed the time before the ship began turning. But that's different from claiming the ship actually turned towards the iceberg. I find it hard to believe that the order would be given to turn towards the iceberg, and then the helm would be allowed enough time on that order for that to become critical.

As for keeping way on the ship after the collision - I am skeptical of that, as well. From what I recall the ship went dead in the water (DIW) once the reports of extensive flooding reached the bridge. Which would have been within minutes, since the forward-most fire room, IIRC was among the first compartments flooded.

The idea that only a bridge officer would know whether the ship was keeping way on, is barking insane. First off, when a vessel is DIW it wallows like a pig. You feel it rocking far more than the stability it may have when moving. So, even the passengers should have been able to notice whether the ship was still underway. Secondly, you don't run an Edwardian era steam plant without watchstanders. And that black gang will know what the engine orders were, as well as what the engines were actually producing. The idea that only Lightoller could know of the engine orders is insane.




RMS Titanic and Brittle Fracture in her steel

As for the cold sensitive steel theory, more properly known as brittle fracture failure theory, the results of some serious testing are a bit mixed. It is likely that some of the rivets, at least, used in the construction failed via brittle fracture.

Let's back up a bit - what is brittle fracture failure?

Normally when a metal is stressed the crystalline structure will stretch and bend before it fails - breaks. This stretching is an important safety margin, it takes energy to stretch and deform the metal, and that deformation is often enough to absorb whatever stresses are affecting the metal. While it's not good for a metal piece to bend out of shape, when you're talking about keeping water out of the people tank, it's far better to have the people tank get a little out of shape than to have it passing megagallons of water. When a metal undergoes brittle fracture, it breaks in response to stresses without deforming, first. This means that compared to the metal's normal yield strength (the stress the metal can withstand before it fails) a metal in its brittle fracture zone will fail at a fraction of the stresses that it could withstand if it were going to undergo ductile failure.

The classic example of brittle fracture in shipping is the Liberty Ship S.S. Schenectady.

On 16 January 1943, she was moored at the fitting dock at Swan Island, in calm weather, shortly after returning from her sea trials. Without warning, and with a noise audible for at least a mile, the hull cracked almost in half, just aft of the superstructure.

Which highlights the other thing about brittle fracture failure: Unlike ductile failure which is often slow, and takes time to propagate, once a brittle fracture starts, it goes like lightning.

Post-war analysis of shipping losses found several of the Liberty-ship tankers were likely lost to similar brittle-fracture failures while underway.

The next thing to consider is that brittle-fracture failure wasn't properly defined, let alone understood, until the post-war period. In 1910, no one knew anything about it, and so didn't know to choose metals for their ductile behavior at low temperatures.

Now, here's a relatively low-jargon article from the Journal of Metallurgy, which goes over the brittle fracture failure theory for the loss of Titanic. It also mentions the tests that have been done on steel samples kept from when the ship was built and I believe some recovered steel as well.

The conclusion of the article is as follows:

The steel used in constructing the RMS Titanic was probably the best plain carbon ship plate available in the period of 1909 to 1911, but it would not be acceptable at the present time for any construction purposes and particularly not for ship construction. Whether a ship constructed of modern steel would have suffered as much damage as the Titanic in a similar accident seems problematic. Navigational aides exist now that did not exist in 1912; hence, icebergs would be sighted at a much greater distance, allowing more time for evasive action. If the Titanic had not collided with the iceberg, it could have had a career of more than 20 years as the Olympic had. It was built of similar steel, in the same shipyard, and from the same design. The only difference was a big iceberg.

There have been some other studies done later that looked at the riveting metals used in Titanic, and I believe that they were found to be a bit more susceptible towards brittle fracture, but again, based on what was known at the time, it seems that Titanic was built to the highest standards of the day.

[vison]

Wow, what a great post, OtakuLoki. Thank you!

We were in St. John's, Nfld. a few years ago and saw the Titanic exhibition at Signal Hill. This exhibition focused more on the construction of the ship, the politics involved, etc., than on the disaster itself. It was very interesting to learn that the ship's construction was somewhat rushed and in many ways haphazard. There was a huge rivalry in the steamship business between Cunard and White Star and the glory of the biggest, fastest ship meant profits.

[Peeta Mellark]

Nice, informative post, OtakuLoki. You explained a couple of things I've wondered about before.