Posted on 04/14/2016 10:15:40 AM PDT by NRx
In the 1958 Titanic film "A Night to Remember," Captain Smith is consulting with the shipbuilder Thomas Andrews. After the two realize that the Titanic will sink and that there are not enough lifeboats for even half those aboard, Smith quietly says "I don't think the Board of Trade regulations visualized this situation, do you?"
In the run-up to the 100th anniversary of this tragedy this weekend, there's been a lot of commentary about who and what were to blame. Left unsaid is that the Titanic's lifeboat capacity is probably the most iconic regulatory failure of the 20th century.
The ship had carried 2,224 people on its maiden voyage but could only squeeze 1,178 people into its lifeboats. There were a host of other failures, accidents, and mishaps which led to the enormous loss of life, but this was the most crucial one: From the moment the Titanic scraped the iceberg, the casualties were going to be unprecedented.
Yet the Titanic was fully compliant with all marine laws. The British Board of Trade required all vessels above 10,000 metric tonnes (11,023 U.S. tons) to carry 16 lifeboats. The White Star Line ensured that the Titanic exceeded the requirements by four boats. But the ship was 46,328 tonnes. The Board of Trade hadn't updated its regulations for nearly 20 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
head on strike would have produced a lot of injuries, but the ship would have remained afloat. At least long enough for the Californian and other rescue ships to arrive.
One of Titanics design flaws was that the watertight bulkheads didn’t extend far enough up. With the “gash” (actually a long series of smaller splits and punctures) as each successive forward compartment filled pulling the bow down, the water began to overflow into the next compartment.
Post 5 nails it. Doesn’t matter what they did. Not enough maneuverability.
Some of the design flaw fixes were reverse engineered into Olympic. A lot more were built into Britannic.
Iirc one of the fixes built into Britannic were redesigned expansion joints. Put in under the belief (since proven accurate) that Titanic’s stern had quickly cracked then failed and separated from the rest of the hull as it rose into the air.
Based on the analysis I have read, it would not have sunk. The glancing blow bypassed too many watertight bulkheads.
They did in fact exceed the regulations. It still wasn’t enough. After the tragedy Cunard, the Hamburg Line, etc all had to retrofit their ships. Again the takeaway should be that government regulations are no guarantee of safety. In the modern world they only guarantee insanity.
“Can’t blame it on the government. They did not need to be told that there should be enough lifeboats for everyone on board.”
Exactly.
And there is no reason to believe that if there were no regulations the shipbuilder and White Star would have provided enough lifeboats.
Running at close to full speed into an iceberg field on a moonless night didn’t help matters.
On the other hand, Britannic had more then enough lifeboats, and complete bulkheads to the top deck yet she sank FASTER than Titanic. The speed of the ship going under and the extreme list made half the lifeboats unusable.
Again, government regulations won't save you. The idiot captain of the Costa Concordia showed that regulations can be ignored. Regulations do create a lot of paperwork and at times can distract from real safety issues:
I can guarantee you that somewhere in the British government there was a conversation like this......
Clerk: “Sir, I don’t think there are enough lifeboats on this drawing to handle all of the passengers on this ship.”
Bureaucrat: “Let’s let someone else worry about that, eh, laddy.”
Interestingly, regulations resulting from the “lifeboats for all” movement after Titanic resulted in roughly 850 more deaths when the shallow draft Eastland, a Great Lakes liner burdened with far more lifeboats than she was ever designed for, turned turtle at the dock.
Legislators were even warned beforehand about adding extra weight up high to ships like these.
I never heard of the Eastland-—thanks.
I’ll now go and read about it. :=)
.
Thank you! The Eastland incident illustrates the point I’ve been peppering this thread with. Regulations will not save you. For the victims on the Eastland, they were fatal. And the ship was at the dock at the time!
ping for later
Yeah, that’s the one. And it is 100% BS.
One book I read is “The Titanic Story” by Stephen Cox.
You can also find some interesting videos about the Titanic disaster on YouTube.
Leonard Maltin, a British historian, also has a website and some videos online. He’s also written some books.
Yes, the rivets may have played a part. Also, surprisingly, the weather conditions seem to have played a part in altering visibility at sea.
The free market w/o regulation would help as the manufacturer generally builds based on regulations - the auto industry is the perfect example. The regulations often make little sense - it's a shame.
Chris Berg? Iceberg? There's an old joke about that which would probably be considered anti-Semitic.
Of course the theory is nonsense.
But okay, blame an insufficiently demanding regulator for not making greater demands on the company.
WSJ has just made the case for much more and stricter regulation, since companies are too lazy and stupid to do anything on their own initiative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.