Page 23 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

reason why they sent aft. They had only one pump in No. 4 boiler room, and the reason they sent aft for those additional pumps was to get additional pumping power on to No. 4 boiler room with a view to keeping it down. That would, in general terms, agree with the evidence given by Mr. Ismay as to his conversation with the Chief Engineer, that he hoped to keep it under by pumping. I admit the evidence is circumstantial. 20347. What I wanted to ask you is this. A difficulty is felt as to how No. 4 could have been injured in the skin of the ship if the wound terminated, as from Barrett’s evidence apparently it did terminate, just above the watertight compartment forward of No. 5? - From a calculation which I will refer to in a moment, I cannot believe that the wound was absolutely continuous the whole way. I believe that it was in a series of steps, and that from what we heard Barrett say in his evidence it was the end of one of the series of wounds which flooded the different spaces; that before the ship finally cleared the iceberg as the helm was put over, she would be tending to swing her side into the iceberg, and that a very light contact was made in No. 4. It seemed very probable, quite apart from actual direct evidence of the fact; that is, that after the ship had finished tearing herself at the forward end of No. 5, she would tend to push herself against the iceberg a little, or push herself up the iceberg, and there would be a certain tendency, as the stern came round to aft under the helm, to bang against the iceberg again further aft. 20348. Is the ship broadening at all as far aft as that (pointing to the model)? - Practically parallel. The Commissioner: What do you mean by that? Mr. Rowlatt: Getting wider, my Lord. It ceased, as I understand. 20349. (The Commissioner.) Mr. Wilding, if this evidence of Cavell’s is correct, do you draw the inference that in some way or other there was an injury to the skin of the ship as far aft as the No. 4 boiler section? - I believe that to be correct; the whole body of evidence tends that way, Barrett’s in particular. 20350. If the double skin had been carried up higher, would the water have come into No. 4? - Certainly not, my Lord; the injury was evidently a very slight one. 20351. And, therefore, if in your design you had carried the double skin a little higher, that injury, at any rate, would not have been of any consequence? - Yes, and probably from the comparatively small extent of the injury at the forward end of No. 5 boiler room would also have been prevented in the bunker. 20352. In the forward end of No. 5? - Yes, in the forward end of No. 5 probably. 20353. That is as near as possible to No. 4? - I do not think No. 4 would have been injured, not from the flooding, but with the ship being as she was, I believe that no bulkhead arrangement possible forward would have saved the ship, because of the red dotted line which I have drawn across as the result of the earlier calculations. 20354. From the way this ship was constructed her life could not possibly have been saved if No. 5 was flooded? - Even if No. 6 was flooded, your Lordship means. 20355. Yes, I beg your pardon. If No. 6 was flooded, the life of this ship, having regard to her construction, had gone? - Absolutely, my Lord, and, of course, No. 6, and all the compartments forward of it. Yes, of course, I mean that. 20356-7. (Mr. Rowlatt.) Now can you give me your view upon this point - if you do not think you can give any view upon it, do not, but I will ask you. You know what the evidence is as to the sort of wound the ship had? - Yes. 20358. And you know how long she floated? - Yes. 20359. And roughly, how she went down? - Yes. 20360. Does it throw any light to your mind upon the question of whether the watertight doors in the bulkheads were or were not shut? - No. The same scale, if I may so use it, of the sinking is