Page 23 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 27 - 31

was given to me as two-tenths of a knot, but I think it would be slightly more than that - about 1,200 or 1,300 feet. 25294. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Does that complete the information with regard to the turning circles or curves? - As regards the turning, but my Lord also wanted certain information with regard to stopping with engines reversed and the rudder not put over. 25295. Yes? - The trials that I have were made again off Belfast Lough. Both engines were running at about 60 revolutions, corresponding to a speed of about 18 knots. The helm was left amidships and both engines were reversed. The way was off the ship in about three minutes and 15 seconds from the order to reverse engines being given, and the distance run was just over 3,000 feet. I might mention in that connection that, so far as we on the bridge could see, the engines were not reversed as quickly as we had seen them, and the distance is probably a little on the large side; but that is what we actually observed, and it would be very difficult to put an estimated correction on it. 25296. Does that complete the matter, the curves and the distance the ship would run before she would come to a stop? - That is right. 25297. Then your attention was also directed to this, I believe, whether or not you had made any calculations with regard to the flooding of the “Mauretania” in view of her internal construction. Have you been able to arrive at any certain results with regard to it? - Yes. The calculations, of course, were approximate, because the data available were not complete in the sense in which they had been complete for the flooding calculations that I made for the “Titanic,” but made them in conjunction with the Cunard Naval Architect, who gave evidence, and we agreed on the figures as being the best approximation we could make with the data available. We wrote out a brief memorandum giving the results and made a plan which we both initialed, and I propose to put this in. (The memorandum was handed in and is as follows): - “We have considered by approximate methods the flooding of the ‘Mauretania’ in the event of an accident similar to that met with by the ‘Titanic.’ We have assumed the watertight doors and hatches to be closed and similar deductions to those made in the calculations for the ‘Titanic.’ From the calculations made, taking the vessel as damaged from the stem to the afterend of the forward boiler room (corresponding nearly - but not quite - to the length from the stem to the afterend of the No. 5 boiler room in the ‘Titanic’) the vessel would remain afloat with a considerable list, say 15 deg. to 20 deg., which, no doubt, could be slowly reduced by carefully flooding some after spaces on the opposite side. With the data available we do not think we can satisfactorily discuss flooding corresponding to the damage extending into No. 4 boiler room in the ‘Titanic.’ - (Signed), Ed. W.; L. Peskett.” The Witness: There is one thing I should like to say with regard to the calculations which have been handed in, because I do not think it appears in the statement. Might I see the statement for a moment? (The statement was handed to the Witness.) I see it does not appear in the statement. The calculations show that the vessel would have a considerable list, and in order that the water should not rise above the top of the bulkhead, we had to assume the bunkers flooded on the other side. It would be quite a practicable operation by raising the watertight doors, but they would have to be opened so that the water could get through to the port bunkers. 25298. (The Commissioner.) This report of yours has been made in conjunction with the naval architect of the Cunard Line? - In conjunction with the naval architect of the Cunard Line, and we both signed it. It was an agreed calculation. There is just one other matter in that calculation which does not appear, which perhaps should be mentioned, and that is that the flooding of the foremost boiler room in the “Mauretania” was due to the fact that at one place in the boiler room there is only a single skin, and not a double skin, and that materially increased the danger to that vessel.