Posted by Scott Andrews on March 30, 1999 at 08:36:52 in 205.147.245.41:
In Reply to: A modern day titanic posted by Phillip on March 29, 1999 at 17:27:09:
...Had the Titanic been built like a modern day cruise ship, with double skin, bulkheads that go all the way up to nearly the top...It is things like this that make todays ships safer than those of yesteryear...If the titanic was equiped with abigger rudder she could make it...also if she was ran full AHEAD, and not full astern when the berg was sited she would have been able to turn fastre and sharper...
Phillip and all other interested readers:
I believe we covered this ground several times in the past. First, if Titanic had been built like modern cruise ships, she would have fared no better, and in fact, would probably have capsized. Modern cruise ships are built to a two compartment standard (must be able to float with any two adjacent compartments flooded) and do NOT have double hulls. Their bulkheads go no higher than necessary to obtain the two compartment standard. The Titanic met this same two compartment standard and even exceeded it in regards to damage sustained in her forward or aft ends. In fact, her amidship bulkheads were carried to a height far in excess of that required by today's regulations to obtain that two compartment standard. With the exception of tankers, the only vessels being built with double hulls and more extensive watertight subdivision are warships. The only liner that comes to mind that MIGHT be capable of remaining afloat after a collision like the one Titanic suffered is the SS United States. Her subdivision was designed with the US Navy in mind. So, next time you're aboard a cruise ship, pay VERY close attention at the boat drill - you're not as safe as you might think!
As for the rudder size and the "full astern" order controversies, John Bedford and Chris Hackett, naval architects, touched on both of these in their technical paper read before the Royal Institute of Naval Architects. Despite all of the talk over the size of the rudders of the Olympic-class being too small, the turning circles noted on the builder's trails of all three ships and the response time to the helm were well within the acceptable limits of today's standards. And as far as the effect of the order to reverse engines, in the learned opinion of a retired chief engineer, who had many years of experience in operating the machinery of another H&W-built ship fitted with similar machinery, to whom Bedford and Hackett spoke at length on the subject, it would have been physically impossible to stop and reverse those enginge within the 37 seconds between the iceberg's sighting and the collision. At best, the steam from the reciprocating engines may have been diverted from the turbine to the condensers and the process of halting the reciprocating engines begun.
Regards,
Scott