British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 25
Testimony of William D. Archer
Examined by Mr. BUTLER ASPINALL.
24226. Are you Principal Ship Surveyor to the Board of Trade?
- I am.
24227. How long have you held that position?
- Since the year 1898.
24228. I believe your offices are in London?
- In London, yes.
24229. And for the purposes of this Enquiry what you have to do is this, is it not? You are consulted by the ship Surveyor at Belfast with regard to certain matters?
- Yes.
24230. And I believe you have certain plans sent over to you from Belfast?
- Yes, I had certain plans sent.
24231. And I think they are sent to you for the purpose of enabling you to determine what the freeboard of the ship should be?
- That is so.
24232. I believe, incidentally, in connection with the assigning of the freeboard the question of the bulkheads is considered by you?
- They were.
24233. And did you have adequate information to enable you to give this vessel a safe freeboard?
- Yes.
24234. And you did so?
- Yes.
24235. I do not know if you were consulted by Belfast in regard to other matters in connection with this ship, were you?
- Yes, several other matters; for example, such questions as the ventilation of emigrants' quarters.
24236. I do not think they are matters which would assist my Lord in any way?
- Not in the least.
24237. They are small matters of detail, but you had all these matters before you; you gave them your attention?
- Yes.
24238. And you acquiesced finally in the declaration that was made at Belfast by Mr. Carruthers?
- Yes.
24239. He, having had throughout the benefit of your advice and assistance when required?
- Yes.
24240. That is what it really comes to, does it not?
- Yes.
24241. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) I do not know whether it will assist your Lordship; it has been suggested to me that I should put in the loadline (Handing in a diagram.) So much for the work that was done by the board's officers at Belfast. Now, I want to direct your attention to another matter. During the progress of this Enquiry certain questions have been asked as to the action of the Board of Trade with regard to increasing the boat accommodation?
- Yes.
24242. And your name was mentioned as one of the gentlemen who had considered the matter, and given the board the benefit of your views?
- Yes.
24243. We were told that you had made a Minute in 1911. That is so, is it not?
- Yes.
24244. Have you got the minute before you?
- I have it.
24245. It will have to be read; it is short. Will you read it?
- Yes.
24246. What is the date?
- 28th February, 1911. "In accordance with the board's instructions by telephone, I attach an extension of the boat scale which has been made by continuing the scale at the same rate, which exists at the upper end of the present scale, viz., 250 cubic feet boat capacity for every 1,000 tons, or 1,250 cubic feet for each 5,000 tons. For a vessel of 50,000 tons gross the scale requires 26 boats under davits of 15,500 cubic feet. The number of boats has been arrived at by dividing the aggregate capacity by 600 cubic feet, this being about the capacity of the 30-feet boats fitted in the 'Lusitania." The adoption of the scale would imply the following boat equipment in a vessel of 50,000 tons by Division A, Class 1, of the Rules: -
| - |
Cubic Feet. |
Persons. |
13 lifeboats under davits
11 C and - - - " - - - " - - - - |
2 d boats - - " - - - - " - - - -|
Say 20 additional boats or rafts |
7,750
7,750
11,625 |
775
968
1,453 |
| 46 |
27,125 |
3,196 |
"If, however, the vessel be divided into efficient watertight compartments to the board's satisfaction, the total boat equipment would be, say, 36 boats of 21,313 cubic feet."
24247. (The Commissioner.) Accommodating how many?
- I could not say right off, My Lord, without figuring it out, because some of the boats are reckoned at eight cubic feet, but, roughly, it would accommodate 2,131 persons, taking them at ten cubic feet.
24248. That is near enough. Now go on?
- "I would suggest, however, that an alteration could usefully be made in No. 12 of the Rules in the direction of making a larger concession in the case of vessels which are efficiently subdivided. Owing, no doubt, to the very small reduction of life-saving appliances at present sanctioned by this Rule, none of the large vessels recently constructed have complied with the recommendations of the bulkhead Committee, although they are thought to be most reasonable in the case of vessels which have boat capacity for only a proportion of the persons carried. In the case of the 'Lusitania' and 'Mauretania' application was received for inspection and approval of the bulkheads, but was afterwards abandoned. These vessels are, however, understood to comply with Admiralty requirements. It is suggested that in the case of vessels divided into efficient watertight compartments in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, the additional boats or life rafts required by division A, class 1 (d.) might be dispensed with altogether, provided the boat scale is maintained at about the values shown by the diagram. This would imply in a vessel of 50,000 tons: -
|
Cubic Feet |
Persons |
13 Lifeboats under davits … …
11 C and 2 d boats … … … … |
7,750
7,750 |
775
968 |
| 24 |
15,500 |
1,743 |
The Attorney-General:
It will be rather difficult to follow all this on the table. This is one of the Reports which your Lordship will remember - one of the four with the tables which I said I would have printed in a Memorandum. I have the Proofs, if I may hand them up. I do not know whether there will be anything to alter, but I have not had time to revise them; they have only just come in. I propose to hand up to your Lordship now this Print, so that it may be followed while the witness is in the box. It may be necessary to revise them, and, if so, your Lordship will let us have them back. The witness had just read to the bottom of page 17 and was going to the top of page 18.
The Commissioner:
He has referred to the 13 lifeboats and the 11 C and 2 d boats.
24249. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. Now we are going to the top of page 18.
The Witness:
"According to the Rule of 19th April, 1910, this would require 10 sets of davits on each side of the vessel, which would probably not be impracticable in a vessel of 50,000 tons, but if any difficulty is experienced in this respect, one-third of the total number of boats might be allowed inboard. Probably the chief difficulty in adopting the above scale may be found in providing sufficient hands to launch and man 46 boats in the case of a vessel which is not subdivided to the satisfaction of the board; I have, however, no information as to the usual number of the various ratings in very large passenger vessels."
24250. (The Commissioner.) That is the end?
- Yes.
The Commissioner:
What is the next table of figures?
Mr. Butler Aspinall:
I thought that was a sort of Appendix, because it seems to give effect to the views he has expressed.
The Attorney-General:
I think so.
The Commissioner:
"Minimum number of boats to be placed under davits"?
24251. (The Attorney-General.) Yes.
The Witness:
My report contained a diagram, and that is substantially this table, although I see a slight alteration has been made.
The Commissioner:
Very well.
24252. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) The outcome of it is that, apart from this question of the shipowner getting any exemption by reason of having efficient watertight compartments, your view is that in the case of a vessel of 50,000 tons and upwards, she ought to have a sum total of cubic contents amounting to 27,125 feet?
- That is so.
24253. That is in the neighbourhood of 2,500 people?
- Yes.
24254. That is what it comes to?
- Yes.
24255. Your report is dated 28th February, 1911. In view of the disaster to the "Titanic," do you still hold the same opinion, or has it been in any way altered or modified?
- No, My opinion has been to some extent modified.
24256. Will you tell me in what respect?
- In the first place, I think the Rule No. 12 which grants a certain exemption to vessels when efficiently subdivided should be discontinued.
Mr. Butler Aspinall:
That is page 16 of the book on "Life -Saving Appliances," at the bottom, No. 12.
The Attorney-General:
That is the Exemption Rule.
24257. (The Commissioner.) Yes, I remember it.
The Witness:
In the second place, I think that the total boat capacity required should no longer be regulated on a tonnage basis, but rather that a boat capacity should be required in all for a certain proportion of the total number of persons carried on board the vessel, including passengers and crew.
24258. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Anything else?
- I think, further, that before the definite percentage of boat capacity to the number of persons on board is determined it would be wise that a committee of experts should be appointed to endeavour to devise some better method of putting boats into the water than at present exists, the present method being to lower them from davits by falls, so that the boat is free to swing about and is very liable to be dashed against the side of the vessel. That is all I have to recommend.
Examined by Mr. SCANLAN.
24259. I see, Mr. Archer, that this minute of the 28th February, 1911, is signed by you?
- Yes.
24260. It was the view, then, you had expressed to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade?
- Yes.
24261. If effect had been given to your view, the "Titanic" would have been provided with boat accommodation for how many people?
- Roughly speaking, about 2,493, I think.
24262. (The Commissioner.) Where do you get that figure from?
- In the table, My Lord, the second line from the bottom.
The Attorney-General:
He is taking 10 percent of the cubic capacity. That is the last figure but one on the extreme right-hand column of page 18.
24263. (The Commissioner.) I do not quite see how that fits in with this statement on page 17: "If the vessel be divided into efficient watertight compartments to the board's satisfaction" - as the "Titanic" was - "the total boat equipment would be, say, 36 boats of 21,313 cubic feet." That would represent 2,130 people, would it not?
- Yes, My Lord.
24264. Then how do you make it 2,493? Are the two statements consistent?
- The vessel had not been divided into watertight compartments to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, My Lord.
Mr. Scanlan:
May I suggest that this is how the difference arises? If you take 10 as the divisor for all the boats, you would have accommodation for something like 2,131; but I rather gathered from this gentleman that he says some of them would be boats of a class for which 10 is the proper divisor, and in other cases eight is the proper divisor.
24265. (The Commissioner.) Is that so?
- I beg your pardon, My Lord, that is so. That is where the difference comes in.
24266. That makes the difference?
- Yes.
The Attorney-General:
I have not seen that before.
Mr. Scanlan:
In his evidence he has stated so.
The Attorney-General:
That will not account for the difference between the two tables.
24267. (Mr. Scanlan.) You would have, altogether, 24 boats?
- 24 boats.
24268. Some of them would be of Class A and some of Classes B or C?
- They might be of Class C or Class D.
Mr. Scanlan:
Perhaps you would work it out for me - it is very easy to compute it in figures - and let us see how you get at the accommodation for 2,493 persons.
(The witness commenced to compute the figures.)
The Commissioner:
What is happening now.
Mr. Scanlan:
The witness is making up a calculation, your Lordship.
The Commissioner:
How long is it to take?
Mr. Scanlan:
Perhaps he will be able to tell your Lordship.
The Commissioner:
Cannot you ask some other questions in the meantime?
Mr. Scanlan:
He cannot calculate, My Lord, on one subject and answer questions on another. Perhaps he might give it afterwards.
The Commissioner:
I suggest that you should pass on to something else.
24269. (Mr. Scanlan.) Very well, My Lord. (To the witness.) This Report of yours, this Minute of yours, was submitted to Sir Walter Howell?
- Yes.
24270. Can you tell me why this Report was not acted on?
- No, Sir.
The Commissioner:
Was Sir Walter Howell asked about this Minute?
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship will remember how it stands, if I remind you. This is all a matter that precedes the reference to the Committee on the 4th of April, 1911. Several Reports were obtained - four altogether - and Mr. Archer's was the one that made the biggest demands on the vessel. Your Lordship will remember that I said we would have all four of them printed. Then those Reports were referred to the Committee without the tables being sent at all; the Committee had to decide for themselves, and they reported in July.
The Commissioner:
Forgive me for asking you, but what did Sir Walter Howell give as a reason for doing nothing upon those four reports?
The Attorney-General:
He would not agree that they did nothing. On the contrary, what they did was to get the Reports in February, 1911, and thereupon they are discussed and considered, and the result of them is that they differ - those four reports, as your Lordship will see; and the consequence was that the whole matter was referred to the advisory committee, which is constituted under the statute.
The Commissioner:
And then came the Report.
The Attorney-General:
Then the Committee upon the 4th April, 1911, had the Reports before it had the matter referred to it in the letter of reference, and in July of 1911 the Committee reported. Your Lordship will remember that the Reports had dealt with a figure of 8,231.
The Commissioner:
That was the Report Mr. Carlisle signed.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is how it stood.
The Commissioner:
That was the 8th of July, 1911. Then they began to act upon it, or did move in regard to it in March, 1912, was not it, or February?
The Attorney-General:
No, they acted upon it long before that. There was a series of experiments made, it appears, from the evidence of Sir Walter Howell and Captain Young. There were various things enquired into. One thing which was exercising them particularly was as to whether it was necessary to deal with the proportion of depth to breadth, upon which a good deal appears in the memorandum that has not been read in detail; and experiments were made upon boats by, amongst others, Captain Clarke, the last witness who was called, and in the result, in March, 1912, there is a Minute of Captain Young's of the 28th March, I think it is, and then there is another one on the 30th March; and then on the 4th of April, 1912, Sir Walter Howell gives directions as to the letter that is to be written.
The Commissioner:
The letter is dated the 16th.
The Attorney-General:
The letter is, in fact, dated the 16th, but that was cleared up by the reference to the minute. The way the evidence stands is that none of these four reports went before the Committee. Rightly or wrongly, what was thought right was to refer the matter without including these tables.
The Commissioner:
There was what you might call a skeleton scale.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but it did not fill in any of the details.
The Commissioner:
In order that they might exercise their own judgment and make a scale of their own.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. That is how the evidence stands till the 30th March, 1912, and then later on there is a scale which does go before the Committee.
Mr. Scanlan:
I am anxious, of course, to have it made clear that this Report, this Minute, was not submitted to the advisory committee.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly not - neither that nor the other three Reports.
The Commissioner:
None of the four was submitted.
24271. (Mr. Scanlan.) In your capacity of Principal Ship's Surveyor, were the plans for the boating of the "Titanic" submitted to you?
- Yes.
24272. Were any plans submitted to you of the "Titanic"?
- Oh, yes.
24273. But none of them dealt with the equipment?
- Not so far as I remember.
24274. There is just one other point I want to clear up. You stated that your opinion has been modified since you made this Report in view of the "Titanic" disaster, and you think now that the lifeboat accommodation should be in proportion to the passengers carried?
- In a certain proportion.
24275. Do you mean the passengers for which a ship is certified?
- Excuse me, not passengers, but passengers and crew - the total persons on board, yes.
24276. (The Commissioner.) Do you mean the number certified?
- Yes, My Lord.
24277. That is to say, the number the ship may carry?
- Yes, My Lord.
24278. (Mr. Scanlan.) For a ship of the size of the "Titanic," on her certificate, what lifeboat accommodation, in your view, should be provided?
- I have formed no opinion on that matter. As I said, I think a conclusion on that point should be preceded by an Enquiry as to a better method of putting boats into the water.
24279. I think you want another Advisory committee?
- Yes.
24280. Have you not formed some opinion as to the proportion between passengers and crew and lifeboat accommodation?
- No definite opinion.
The Commissioner:
You know, if other matters had not to be taken into consideration there ought to be no proportion at all, but the whole number ought to be provided for. But, then, other matters have to be taken into consideration, and they must be taken into consideration. What this Witness means, as I understand, is this: He has not the material to enable him to say, if less boat accommodation should be carried than sufficient for the whole number certified for the ship - he has not sufficient information to enable him to say for what number, less the boat accommodation ought to be provided.
Mr. Scanlan:
I quite agree, My Lord. That is what he means.
The Commissioner:
I understand that is what he means. At present, if you are going to contend, as I daresay you are, that sufficient boats should be carried to accommodate every person that can by law be on board the ship, you will have to satisfy me as to that.
The Attorney-General:
That is 3,500.
The Commissioner:
Before I could think of making any such recommendation - I do not
know that I should in any case make such a recommendation - I think it is a matter that has to be much more carefully considered than we can consider it.
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes, My Lord. I have brought out from all the witnesses what their opinions are.
The Commissioner:
You are quite right on that.
Mr. Scanlan:
Leading to this, My Lord - and that is my submission - that there should be accommodation for all carried on board, at all events.
The Commissioner:
That may be a very different thing, you know. There is a distinction between that and the other.
The Attorney-General:
And a very material one in this case.
The Commissioner:
It is very material, of course. I do not know, Mr. Scanlan, that on the German boats the accommodation is not regulated in accordance with the number of people actually carried - I am not sure about that. I doubt whether the German boats - in fact, I am satisfied that they do not carry sufficient boats to accommodate all the people that they can carry.
Mr. Scanlan:
I would have to concede that it would be an unreasonable proposition to ask that there may be boats for more than the people that were being actually carried.
The Commissioner:
I have never contemplated that, although I can contemplate that being argued.
The Attorney-General:
I thought by the way it stood in the German Regulations that the limitation is that in no event need the vessels carry more boats than were required for the full number of persons on board, but it does not follow at all that they carry sufficient boats for the full number on board. That does not follow at all. But, if according to their tonnage they had to carry more than would be required for the full number of persons on board, then to that extent there is a dispensation that the number would be reduced so as to cover sufficient boats only for the number of persons carried. That limitation there is, but you will not find in the German Regulations, I think, that there is a requirement to this effect - that there shall be a sufficient number carried for all the passengers on board. The standard is the tonnage - in the same way as it is with us, as your Lordship will remember, and not the number of passengers. As you will find from some figures that I am going to give you, you will see that they do not carry sufficient - I will not say that in some cases they may not - but generally speaking from those we have examined they do not carry sufficient to accommodate all on board. That is how it stands. I have had a table prepared which will be proved a little later on, which will show your Lordship what the percentage was before the "Titanic" disaster and what the percentage is after the "Titanic" disaster, in the German requirements.
Mr. Scanlan:
Your Lordship will also have in view the American regulation for lifeboats required on ocean steamers; it is, "11: Each and every steamer" -
The Commissioner:
Are these the ex post facto regulations?
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes, My Lord.
The Attorney-General:
That is after the disaster.
Mr. Scanlan:
Any regulations made by your Lordship will necessarily be -
The Commissioner:
I shall not make any regulations at all. I think those American requirements came into existence about a fortnight after the "Titanic" disaster.
Mr. Scanlan:
That is so, My Lord, on the 24th April.
The Attorney-General:
You have not had time to see the memorandum we have prepared, but it might be useful, My Lord, if you looked at page 37 of this proof that we have handed up. I have not examined the figures in detail yet. You will see there details as to "Foreign requirements as to boats. Note of the foreign requirements as to boats, etc., on passenger steamers. The annexed table enables a comparison to be made between the British, French, American and German requirements as to boats and rafts on passenger steamers of 10,000 tons and upwards." And then it states what the requirements are. Then if you turn over to page 38 you will see there the requirements given in a comparative table. The Germans are worked out on a cubic metre capacity. We have translated that into tons so as to get the same English unit. If you look, for example, at the very bottom of the page, you will see what I mean - the last figure.
The Commissioner:
Where you convert it into English units.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. The last figure - which is for Germany - is 45,942, and up to 49,476 tons - that is our unit - and for that the cubic capacity would be 21,328. Then that is doubled according to the additional craft, collapsibles and rafts, that may be required, which would be 42,656. The actual figure, if your Lordship will remember, is between the one just above that. If you look at the one just above that in the extreme right-hand column, you will find the figure of 39,830.
The Commissioner:
What is that figure?
The Attorney-General:
That represents the cubic capacity for which boat accommodation would have to be provided according to the German requirements without making any allowance for efficient watertight compartments. They have the same Rule as we have - Rule 12, on page 16.
The Commissioner:
That is important.
The Attorney-General:
That gives you this: 19,915 cubic feet would be required for vessels under davits for a vessel of the tonnage of the "Titanic" according to German law. Then you must double that in order to get the total of the boats required under davits - and what they call the supplemental craft and collapsibles, rafts, etc., which have to be provided. That gives you the figure of 39,830.
The Commissioner:
What was the tonnage of the "Titanic"?
The Attorney-General:
There has been just a little discussion about that. We have worked it out at one time as 45,600, but I am told it is 46,000, and, if it is 46,000, you have to take the last line.
Continued >
