At yesterday's meeting subcommittees were appointed to give immediate consideration to the subjects requiring detailed examination. These subcommittees will pursue their inquires concurrently, and we are desired by the advisory committee to inform you that their investigation into the revision of the life­saving appliances rules will be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.
We are, etc. Norman Hill, Chairman
R. W. Matthew, Secretary
Sir Walter J. Howell, K.C.B.
Assistant Secretary Marine Department, Board of Trade
This letter was acknowledged by the board of trade on May 10, 1912 as follows:
Board of Trade, Marine Department, 7 Whitehall Gardens
London, S.W., May 10, 1912.
SIR: I am directed by the board of trade to acknowledge the receipt of , and to thank you for, your letter of April 27, stating that their letters of April 16, 20, 24, and 25 have been considered by the merchant shipping advisory committee.
The board observes with satisfaction that, in view of the entirely new situation which has arisen, the advisory committee have decided to reopen the question of the revision of the table in the life­saving appliances rules in so far as it governs the boat accommodation in vessels over 10,000 tons gross. The board are further glad to observe that the question of a general revision of the life­saving appliances rules is also under consideration by the committee, and in this connection they presume that, in considering the question of a general revision of the rules including the table, the committee will consider the principles on which the requirements as to boat accommodation should be based, including, inter alia, whether the table should continue to be based on tonnage. Any conclusion reached by the committee on this question would naturally affect the revision of the present table as applying to vessels of more than 10,000 tons, upon which the committee has already been engaged.
The board agree with the view expressed by the advisory committee that the appointment of another committee on the spacing and construction of water­tight bulkheads is desirable. Steps have already been taken by the president to form such a committee, and he hopes to be able to announce the names within a few days. A further communication on this point will be addressed to the committee in the course of a few days.
The board are glad to note that subcommittees have been appointed to deal concurrently with the subjects requiring detailed consideration in connection with the revision of the life­saving appliances rules.
The board desire me to add that they assume that the committee, in considering the matters referred to them, will have regard to all important aspects of the question of life­saving appliances, whether expressly dealt with in the statutory rules or not, and in particular to the essential question of the adequacy of the provision for lowering and manning the boats and rafts carried by vessels.
I am, etc. Walter J. Howell.
The Secretary,
Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee,
7 Whitehall Gardens, S.W.
This finishes the history of the action of the board of trade in relation to the provision of boat accommodation on emigrant ships. The outstanding circumstance in it is the omission, during so many years, to revise the rules of 1894 and this, I think, was blameable, notwithstanding the excuse or explanation put forward by Sir Alfred Chalmers. I am, however, doubtful whether even if the rules had been revised the change would have been such as to have required boat accommodation which would have increased the number of lives saved. Having regard to the recommendations of the advisory committee, the board of trade would probably not have felt justified in making rules which would have required more boat accommodation than that with which the Titanic was actually provided; and it is not to be forgotten that the Titanic boat accommodation was utilized to less than two­thirds of its capacity. These considerations, however, afford no excuse for the delay of the board of trade.
The gross tonnage of a vessel is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory basis on which to calculate the provision of boat accommodation. Hitherto, I believe it has been accepted as the best basis by all nations. But there seems much more to be said in favor of making the number of lives carried the basis and for providing boat or raft accommodation for all on board. Rule 12 of the life­saving appliances rules of 1902, which deals with water­tight compartments and boat accommodation, ought to be abolished. The provision of such compartments is of supreme importance, but it is clear that it should not be sought at the expense of a decrease in boat accommodation. When naval architects have devised practical means for rendering ships unsinkable, the question of boat accommodation may have to be reconsidered, but until that time arrives boat accommodation should, where practicable, be carried for all on board. This suggestion may be thought by some to be extravagant. It has never been enforced in the mercantile marine of Great Britain, nor as far as I know in that of any foreign nation. But it appears, nevertheless, to be admitted by all that it is possible without undue inconvenience or undue interference with commerce to increase considerably in many cases the accommodation hitherto carried, and it seems, therefore, reasonable that the law should require an increase to be made. As far as foreign­going passenger and emigrant steamships are concerned, I am of opinion that, unless justification be shown for deviating from this course, such ships should carry boats or rafts for all on board.
With reference to the second branch of the complaint against the board of trade, namely that their officials had failed to exercise due care in the supervision of the vessel's plans and in the inspection of the work done upon her, the charges broke down. Suggestions were made that the board's requirements fell short of those of Lloyd's Registry; but no evidence was forthcoming to support the suggestions. The investigation of the charges took much time, but it only served to show that the officials had discharged their duties carefully and well.
POWERS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE AS REGARDS THE SUPERVISION OF DESIGNS OF VESSELS.
The Titanic was efficiently designed and constructed to meet the contingencies which she was intended to meet.
The bulkheads were of ample strength. They were sufficiently closely spaced and were carried up in the vessel to a height greater than sufficient to meet the requirements of the 1891 bulkheads committee.
But I am advised that the ship could have been further subdivided so that she would probably have remained afloat longer than she did. The board of trade have, however, apparently no power to exercise any real supervision in the matter of subdivision. All they have express power to insist upon in this connection with respect to any steam vessel is that there shall be four water­tight bulkheads ­ a provision quite inadequate for safety in a collision damaging the vessel abaft the collision bulkhead. They can also, if invited by the shipowner (but not otherwise), exercise supervision under rule 12. This supervision, I am told, they have been invited to exercise in only 103 cases over a period of 18 years. In 69 of these cases the board have expressed their satisfaction with the subdivision provided. It seems to me that the board should be empowered to require the production of the designs of all passenger steamers at an early period of their construction and to direct such alterations as may appear to them to be necessary and practicable for the purpose of securing proper water­tight subdivision.
VII FINDING OF THE COURT.
It is now convenient to answer the 26 questions submitted by the board of trade.
1. When the Titanic left Queenstown on or about April 11 last­­
(a) What was the total number of persons employed in any capacity on board her, and what were their respective ratings?
(b) What was the total number of her passengers, distinguishing sexes and classes, and discriminating between adults and children?
Answer: (a) The total number of persons employed in any capacity on board the Titanic was 885. The respective ratings of these persons were as follows:
Deck department 66
Engine department 325
Victualing department 494
885
N.B. The eight bandsmen are not included in this number, as their names appear in the second­class passenger list.
(b) The total number of passengers was 1,316. Of these:
Male Female Total
First­class 180 145 325
Second­class 179 106 285
Third­class 510 196 706
1,316
Of the above 6 children were in the first class; 24 in the second class and 79 in the third class. Total 109.
2. Before leaving Queenstown on or about April 11 last, did the Titanic comply with the requirements of the merchant shipping acts, 1894­1906, and the rules and regulations made thereunder with regard to the safety and otherwise of "passenger steamers" and "emigrant ships"?
Answer. Yes.
3. In the actual design and construction of the Titanic what special provisions were made for the safety of the vessel and the lives of those on board in the event of collisions and other casualties?
Answer. These have been already described.
4. (a) Was the Titanic sufficiently and efficiently officered and manned? (b) Were the watches of the officers and crew usual and proper? (c) Was the Titanic supplied with proper charts?
Answer. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes.
5. (a) What was the number of the boats of any kind on board the Titanic? (b) Were the arrangements for manning and launching the boats on board the Titanic in case of emergency proper and sufficient? (a) Had a boat drill been held on board; and, if so, when? (d) What was the carrying capacity of the respective boats?
Answer. (a) 2 Emergency boats, 14 lifeboats, 4 Engelhardt boats. (b) No, but see page 38. (c) No. (d) The carrying capacity of the 2 emergency boats was for 80 persons; 14 lifeboats was for 910 persons; 4 Engelhardt boats was for 188 persons; or a total of 1,178.
6. (a) What installations for receiving and transmitting messages by wireless telegraphy were on board the Titanic? (b) How many operators were employed on working such installations? (c) Were the installations in good and effective working order, and were the number of operators sufficient to enable messages to be received and transmitted continuously by day and night?
Answer. (a) A Marconi 5­kilowatt motor generator with two complete sets of apparatus supplied from the ship's dynamos, with an independent storage battery and coil for emergency, was fitted in a house on the boat deck. (b) Two. (c) Yes.
7. (a) At or prior to the sailing of the Titanic what, if any, instructions as to navigation were given to the master or known by him to apply to her voyage? (b) Were such instructions, if any, safe, proper, and adequate, having regard to the time of year and dangers likely to be encountered during the voyage?
Answer. (a) No special instructions were given, but he had general instructions contained in the book of Rules and Regulations supplied by the company. (See p. 24). (b) Yes, but having regard to subsequent events they would have been better if a reference had been made to the course to be adopted in the event of reaching the region of ice.
8. (a) What was in fact the track taken by the Titanic in crossing the Atlantic Ocean? (b) Did she keep to the track usually followed by liners on voyages from the United Kingdom to new York in the month of April? (c) Are such tracks safe tracks at that time of the year? (d) Had the master any, and if so, what discretion as regards the track to be taken?
Answer: (a) The outward southern track from Queenstown to New York usually followed in April by large steam vessels (see page 24.) (b) Yes, with the exception that instead of altering her course on approaching the position 42-degrees N. 47-degrees W., she stood on her previous course for some 10 miles farther southwest, turning to S. 86-degrees W. true at 5:50 p.m. (c) The outward and homeward bound southern tracks were decided on as the outcome of many years' experience of the normal movement of ice. They were reasonably safe tracks for the time of year, provided, of course, that great caution and vigilance when crossing the ice region were observed. (d) Yes. Capt. Smith was not fettered by any orders to remain on the track should information as to the position of ice make it, in his opinion, undesirable to adhere to it. The fact, however, of lane routes having been laid down for the common safety of all would necessarily influence him to keep on (or very near) the accepted route, unless circumstances as indicated above should induce him to deviate largely from it.
9. (a) After leaving Queenstown on or about the 11th April last did information reach the Titanic by wireless messages or otherwise by signals of the existence of ice in certain latitudes? (b) If so, what were such messages or signals and when were they received, and in what position or positions was the ice reported to be, and was the ice reported in or near the track actually being followed by the Titanic? Was her course altered in consequence of receiving such information; and, if so, in what way? (d) What replies to such messages or signals did the Titanic send, and at what times?
Answer. (a) Yes. (b) See particulars of ice messages already set out (pp. 26­28). (c) No; her course was altered as hereinbefore described, but not in consequence of the information received as to ice. (d) The material answers were­
At 12:55 p.m. steamship Titanic:
To Commander, Baltic.
Thanks for your message and good wishes. Had fine weather since leaving. Smith.
At 1:26 p.m. steamship Titanic
To Captain, Caronia.
Thanks for message and information. Had variable weather throughout. Smith.
10. (a) If at the times referred to in the last preceding question or later the Titanic was warned of or had reason to suppose she would encounter ice, at what time might she have reasonably expected to encounter it? (b) Was a good and proper lookout for ice kept on board? (c) Were any, and if so, what, directions given to vary the speed; if so, were they carried out?
