Page 63 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 32 - 36

inches. That is at page 499, Question 19796. That is for the deep water loadline. That shows her load draught is 34 feet 7. That is one of the factors in this complicated calculation. Before I go again to the figures, in order to satisfy your Lordship on the evidence, Mr. Archer said that he was satisfied that these bulkheads were carried to the required height, and he, of course, had the whole problem before him and all the figures. He said that at page 692, Question 24433. Perhaps I had better read that question, because it covers the whole ground: “Were you yourself satisfied when the question of the bulkheads was referred to you, that Messrs. Harland and Wolff in the building of the ‘Titanic’ were taking the bulkheads to as high a deck as you thought was required by your regulations in Circular 1401? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You were satisfied? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Mr. Carruthers was not satisfied? - (A.) I do not understand that at all.” That is quite a misleading question, because Mr. Carruthers was perfectly satisfied. The Commissioner: The Attorney-General adds: “No, I did not understand that.” Mr. Laing: I have given your Lordship the reference to Mr. Carruthers, that all the Rules and Regulations were fully satisfied, so that must be some error. Then Mr. Archer, at page 693, Questions 24511 to 24513, said that the “Titanic,” when she left, fully complied with all the Regulations and Rules of the Board of Trade, and, as far as he knew, with Lloyd’s Rules too. The root error of Mr. Edwards’ calculation, I think is - it is difficult quite to put one’s hand on it - that he has taken the moulded depth of the “Titanic” as 45 feet, whereas in truth and in fact it was 45 feet 1 1/2 inches, and it looks uncommonly like one of his 1 1/2 inches. The reason why I think my friend has gone wrong in his calculation is this. I will show your Lordship a series of figures which were submitted for the purpose of obtaining a freeboard, the approximate figures arrived at by calculation before the ship was finished. When the ship was in fact finished, and the actual calculations were applied to the actual measurements of the ship, the differences, which were worked out to a few inches - this 1 1/2 inches is one of them - resulted in the figure which I have given you, and I think Mr. Edwards must have based his calculation on the assumed figures and not upon the actual figures at all. Now, if I may turn to these which refer to the correspondence - there are two volumes of it - one is called “Collision Bulkhead,” which I daresay your Lordship has - The Commissioner: Yes. Mr. Laing: On page 2 of that document you will find a very complicated calculation which I think Mr. Edwards has taken as a basis for his own calculation. Your Lordship will see that they are assumed figures and work out at a result different from the result arrived at on the actual measurements of the vessel which I believe the Board of Trade have. Now, if I may refer to some at all events of the figures which differ to a small extent. It is headed, “The Olympic,” there being a note on page 1 of this volume to this effect, “The steamship ‘Titanic’ and the steamship ‘Olympic’ were sister ships, and the points raised in connection with the construction of the latter applied equally to the ‘Titanic.’“ On page 2 Mr. Archer is sending a letter to the assistant-secretary of the Marine Department, and he is giving a series of calculations for the purpose of arriving at the upper deck of this vessel, and he starts by saying, “Draught 34 feet 9 inches.” The loadline of this vessel was 34 feet 7 inches, so there is a variation at once. The freeboard to upper deck is given as 10 feet 9 inches, making 45 feet 6 inches. Then the moulded depth is taken as 45 feet, whereas in truth and in fact the moulded depth was 45 feet l 1/2 inches, which again would, I should imagine, disturb this calculation. The Commissioner: This letter was written long before the vessel was completed. Mr. Laing: This is on the 30th April, 1910. The Commissioner: And she was not completed until 1912. Mr. Laing: No, and I am told - of course, no evidence has really been directed upon this point, because it has not been raised - that when you make these calculations on assumed or designed