3.6 E-Deck Affair

The E-Deck Affair Staring Second Officer Lightoller

We conclude our consideration of background material for the analysis to follow with the controversial subject of the passenger door forward on E-Deck; The E-Deck Affair (now that we are big on affairs) is yet another controversial aspect of the mysterious Titanic affair in general and it revolves around Second Officer Lightoller.  Lightoller’s swaying testimony that for fifty years or more convinced everyone of Titanic’s unity at sinking could have garnered the accolade affair.  But it takes more than one person in a party to make it an affair.  Lightoller, in sworn testimony, claimed that he ordered the port side E-deck passenger forward entrance door opened shortly after the command was given to load the lifeboats.  He did this (possibly on his own authority) to aid in fully loading the lifeboats apparently in the mistaken belief that the lifeboats could not be lowered safely fully loaded.  His intent was to fill the lifeboats, after their lowering and floating on the sea, via the much lower down opening in the hull at E-Deck level.  [In all probability it was through E-deck doors that passengers boarded the Titanic from small ferry boats at Queenstown.  There were no docking facilities at Queenstown for ships as large as Titanic.]  The crewmen Lightoller sent to open the E-deck door never returned to report mission accomplished as they should have and, in fact, were never seen again by anyone.  The mystery of their disappearance will be touched on in the Analysis.

 

It was because of this lack of confirmation by returning seamen that many believe the door was never opened although one female passenger did confirm it being open (being a woman and a passenger, her testimony had two strikes against her for being believed).  If it was open, none of the lifeboats took advantage of the E-Deck door to load people.

We have then three controversial issues confronting any robust analysis if an accurate portrayal of the Titanic sinking event is to be accomplished.  The boiler issue, rooms # 1 and room #6, are testimonial linked and must be considered together and in context.  Since they are the most critical issue, they will be considered first in the ANALSIS.  The E-Deck door issue is more difficult to argue because the evidence is paltry and post sinking evidence for it having been opened is easily disputed.  The E-Deck door evidence, however limited it may be, will still be argued in the ANALYSIS as the second topic of interest.

PART II

ANALYSIS

the ANALYSIS will not be blogged--sorry

3.5 The Dillon, Barrett and Shiers Affair

But it is the total area values at the bottom of the table that are disquieting if not downright alarming.  These values of less than five sq. ft. are a far cry from the nominal 12 sq. ft. determined by others or even the 10 sq. ft. the Reference 2 authors claim to have determined. The reason for this disparity is that it is not possible for 13,500 tons of water to flow through 5 sq. ft. opening in 45 minutes.  In theory this is possible only if the flow coefficient, which must be applied in this situation, is taken to be unity.  In reality the flow coefficient is much less than unity (1.0).  There are two possibilities—one; the crack width is greater than ½ inch, or two; there is damage elsewhere.  This issue will be explored in depth in the Analysis to follow (no pun intended).

3.5  The Dillon, Barrett and Sheirs Affair

What’ this?  The word ‘affair’ so prominent in the title to this work finally makes it into the text?  Usually it’s the SS California that is so adorned—“The California Affair etc.  This is probably a consequence of ships assigned to the fairer sex ( finally got that word in also—according to the writing pundits this should generate best seller status ).     So here we have three, all men though, creating an affair—in my opinion that is.  In their sworn testimony, Dillon and Barrett seem to agree that boilers in boiler room 1 were not lit.  Apparently, it is because of Dillon and Barrett’s testimony that analyst since then believe that boilers in room one were not in operation.  Shiers on the other hand, who worked the 4pm to 8pm watch, claimed boilers in room 1 were lit.  It is rather obvious both sworn testimonies can’t be correct.  The writers of Reference xxxx, page 389 dismiss the contradiction with a shrug claiming:

 ”It makes little difference whether the boilers were lit or not, they would not have been applied to the engines by midnight that night.”

On this point, Lee, the writer of Reference XXX, is more blunt and I quote:” Despite what some apologists and poor researchers say, the fires in boiler room 1 were not lit that night. While it is true that the boiler used to generate electrical power was used in port, none in that room were used at sea; boiler rooms 2 and/or 4 were used to provide electrical power.”

What Dr. Lee believes is not to be taken lightly because he has a PhD in Nuclear Physics which gives him a fair degree of credibility in the technical arena.  If he and others are correct then that puts the author of this work in his category of “apologist and poor researcher” since I don’t agree with him or them.  I side with Shiers’ observation that boiler room #1 was in operation.

It is hard to overestimate the importance of this disputed view of boiler room #1 operation on the understanding of what happened to the Titanic machine that night.  If those boilers in that room were unused, were cold, then with all other boilers known to have been relieved of high pressure steam by 2:00am, a boiler explosion would have been impossible.  There would be no reason then, for the writing of this book.