Page 21 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

No. 6, and there was some water coming in, as I think he said, in the bunker in No. 5. The Commissioner: Yes. It is suggested to me that, notwithstanding that state of things, the bulkhead between 5 and 6 may not have been injured at all. The Witness: Well, my Lord, there is this wound. You could not rupture the shell, which is strongly connected to the bulkhead, without in some way damaging the bulkhead itself - I mean if you cut the skin, if you break the skin at the bulkhead, you must in some measure, though perhaps only in a small measure, damage the bulkhead itself. Now the next two conditions, my Lord, which I had to make to facilitate the possible calculations of assumption that the bulkheads were carried right up as high as was necessary - 20340. That seems to me to be the next point to consider? - Yes. Mr. Rowlatt: I think you are at cross purposes, my Lord, with the Witness, if I may say so. The Witness is about to explain to you these other two colours. He is not upon the question of clearing up the matter with regard to the bulkheads. He is only explaining that he cannot keep the flooding even when the ship has got to this condition; he cannot keep the flooding to No. 5 and calculate No. 5 separately from No. 4, because before No. 5 is quite full No. 4 will be also partially full, and therefore this is to some extent artificial; this grey colouring which shows the black line is to some extent artificial, because he has treated it as if it was only No. 5 and not also in the hatched red part of No. 4. The Witness: Yes, that is what I wanted to say. It was done to make the calculation a practicable one. I then flooded No. 5 boiler room in identically the same way as I had previously flooded No. 6, adding its flooding effect to the forward spaces, and I got the black line, which, as you will notice, puts the forecastle entirely under water, and also the forward end of forward deck, B deck, which is the top deck shown on these elevations. That means that the waterline is something like that (Describing with a pointer on the model.) Mr. Rowlatt: He is showing your Lordship on the model approximately how it would be when No. 5 was also flooded. The Witness: That is right; about where we got the long tube, my Lord. 20341. Then if it went into No. 4 also, is that shown to be red hatched? - Yes. In order to understand effect of the red hatching and to see what it really means, it is best to tilt the plan and put it like this, so that the red line is approximately parallel to the forecastle head, and it shows that the stern is out of the water as far about as the base of the mainmast, or a little further forward. 20342. (The Commissioner.) I will put it quite shortly to you, Mr. Wilding - is it possible to conceive a construction of bulkheads in the forward part of this ship which would prevent the sinking of this vessel? - Not the eventual sinking, my Lord, the reason being that we had evidence that as far aft as No. 4 boiler room the water was found rising above the stokehold plates, and drove the firemen out of it, in Dillon’s evidence. 20343. I had forgotten that. I thought the evidence pointed to water coming in as far aft as No. 5? - No, my Lord; you will find it in Dillon’s evidence. Mr. Rowlatt: I think No. 5 is the furthest place aft where we have any evidence of a wound in the side of the ship, but water from some source not quite explained was rising in No. 4 also. 20343a. (The Commissioner.) If the water was rising in No. 4 it must, if the watertight bulkhead between 4 and 5 was holding, have been through some external means? - Yes. Mr. Rowlatt: Only we have not direct evidence of it. The Commissioner: But if the evidence is to be believed that water was rising in No. 4, it follows that No. 4 was externally injured, does it not? Mr. Rowlatt: Yes, my Lord. 20344. (The Attorney-General.) I do not know that. (To the Witness.) Does it follow? - It follows my Lord, because we know from the evidence that they were doing their best to pump