Deposition of EDWARD WILDING, contd.
Mr. Betts:
I move to strike out the estimation as not based on fact.
The Court:
Either Mr. Burlingham or some of you gentlemen can develop where he got the information.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. You base that calculation on what?
- On the result of the four preceding voyages of the Olympic, which was a sister ship; we knew how much she used and we knew how long the Titanic had been going, and we could estimate within a few inches what the draft of the Titanic was at the time of the accident.
Q. And you made that estimate?
- I made that estimate for Lord Mersey's information.
Q. In view of the increased size of the Titanic, which you say, I understand, was some 45% larger than the Lusitania and Mauretania, were any special provisions made by Harland & Wolff for strength in construction, and if so, what?
- The special provision consisted mainly in two things: the doubling of the plating that I have already mentioned for longitudinal strength, and the special stiffening and strengthening of the bulkheads for transverse strength, because it was then being proposed to dock the ship on a single line of blocks under the keel and it needed special consideration.
Q. Did that require extra strength?
- That required extra strength, because ships of about 90 feet beam are usually docked on bilge blocks as well as centre line blocks; consequently when there was only the single row we had to make the ship strong enough so that the sides should not drop.
Q. She was designed to rest, not on bilge blocks, but on keel blocks only?
- Only; like smaller ships.
Q. And you say special strength was required in order that she might hold in such circumstances?
- Yes.
Q. What about riveting? Was any special care taken in riveting this vessel?
- Yes; in view of previous experience riveting was the weak point in big ships. We adopted, to an unusual extent, hydraulic riveting wherever possible, to insure the rivets being thoroughly well closed. This was of course a slow and expensive affair, but it was done.
Q. Was there anything specially done to strengthen and stiffen the bulkheads?
- The plating was made slightly heavier than usual and very large stiffeners of specially rolled sections were used to support the plating, and the stiffeners themselves were elaborately bracketed at top and bottom to the general structure of the ship.
Q. Had you any standard or purpose of flotation in the construction of the ship; that is, as to her floatibility with compartments flooded?
- Yes. The vessel was designed to float with any two compartments flooded, and to have good freeboard under those conditions.
Q. Is that a matter that is determined by experiment or by calculation, mathematical calculation?
- Yes, by mathematical calculation from the lines of the ship, and the design.
Q. Have you prepared a flotation plan?
- Yes; it was prepared in the early stages of the design to see that the design satisfied the conditions which we have been discussing.
Q. (Producing plan to witness) Is this it?
- That is a copy of the original plan, prepared in 1909.
Q. Is this a photographic copy?
- This is a photographic copy from the original tracing.
Q. I see that this represents the full length of the ship with the various compartments?
- Yes, showing the position in outline of the various watertight bulkheads.
Q. Looking at the lower right hand corner of the diagram, where I see the turn of the bow, stem, the first heavy black line is what?
- The collision bulkhead.
Q. Does the next black line come so high?
- Yes, it comes up to the same line; not quite so high, because of the sheer of the ship.
Q. That forward compartment abaft the collision bulkhead you have put a red cross on?
- Yes.
Q. What does that indicate?
- That was to show up on this diagram which compartments we assumed to be flooded, and the waterline that is drawn on the diagram is the proper line at which the ship would float with the two compartments, marked in red, flooded.
Q. Throughout this whole plan that is now before us, you have gone from forward aft, one by one, indicating two consecutive compartments flooded?
- Yes.
Q. And then indicated the line at which the ship would float with those two compartments flooded?
- Yes.
Q. Will you take any one and explain it to us.
- Taking the one that is marked No. 8, the strong black line is a sort of silhouette of the ship below the level of the deck to which the bulkheads extend. The dotted line shows the elevation of the top sides of the ship, for identification; and the particular pair of compartments under consideration in
No. 8 were No. 4 boiler room and No. 3 boiler room, the boiler rooms being numbered from aft, forward. These two compartments are, for quick identification, marked with a red cross. Another horizontal line along the ship shows the level to which the ship, starting from her load draft of 34 feet 7 inches would sink, if those two compartments were flooded. The purpose of the diagram was to show that to the top of the bulkhead was still at a distance high above the flooded waterline.
Q. Did you do that for every pair of compartments?
- As shown in the diagram.
Q. Did you do this before the ship was built?
- We did.
The keel was laid, but the ship was barely in frame.
Q. Is this always done in modern times, now?
- Very seldom; it is perhaps fair to say that though very seldom done it is not unknown for other big ships.
The diagram is offered in evidence and is marked petitioners s Exhibit 5 of this date.
Q. Have you any diagram, based on the assumption that more than two compartments on the Titanic, as the result of this collision with the iceberg, were flooded?
- I made one at Lord Mersey's request during his inquiry.
Q. How many compartments did you assume to have been flooded?
- Varying numbers.
Q. Did you yourself prepare these?
- They were prepared by my senior assistant from calculations at my direction, and I checked the calculations.
Q. Will you take these papers that you brought with you and pick out one which will illustrate that to us?
- The one that illustrates the matter in general, best, was the colored one which was referred to in my evidence before Lord Mersey as "flooding by compartments plan."
Q. This is exactly similar to that, is it? (indicating)
- That is a copy from the tracing then prepared. The copy was made just lately by my directions.
Q. It is a true copy?
- It is a true copy.
The copy of plan is marked Exhibit 6 for identification of this date.
Q. Now, will you explain it?
- First of all, the plan was made on the estimated waterline which has already been referred to as being that at the time of the accident. Starting with that waterline which is indicated by a black dotted broken line, faintly, at the two ends of the diagram (a - a1), we flooded the foremost compartments, the forepeak; then she went to the yellow line (b-bl), the change of course being very small, a few inches. We next flooded the next compartment, No. 1 hold, and the result gave the green line, the extent of the flooding coming back to the green line (c-c1)
Q. That means both are flooded?
- Both are flooded; in each case there was an additional compartment flooded as we went aft. We then flooded in the same manner the No. 2 hold, as well, making three compartments, giving the brown line (d-dl). We then, in addition, flooded No. 3 hold, making four compartments flooded, giving the red line (e-e1). Up to this point the tops of all the bulkheads remained above the waterline.
Q. I see; with those four forward compartments, the forepeak, 1, 2 and 3, when flooded, the water would not be above the bulkhead between 3 hold and 6 boiler room.
- Yes. We then, in addition, flooded No. 6 boiler room, making five compartments flooded, bringing it to (f-fl). This brought the top of the bulkheads to below the waterline and we had for calculation purposes to assume the bulkhead at the after end of go. 6 boiler room was extended up; but of course in reality in the ship it was not. If the ship had been flooded in the forepeak Nos. l, 2 and 3 holds, and No. 6 boiler room, she would no longer remain afloat, as the water would run successively aft. Making a similar assumption for No. 5 boiler room, making 6 compartments flooded, it went to the black line marked (g-g1) and gray shading.
Q. Then in order that the ship should remain afloat in such circumstances the bulkhead would have to rise to B deck?
- To B deck, quite right. The bulkhead between Nos. 4 and 5 boiler rooms. There was some evidence when the plan was being made that No. 4 boiler room was also damaged.
Mr. Betts:
I move to strike out the witness' answer.
The Witness:
I am only explaining why I go on assuming.
Q. You can state the basis of your assumption in your own way.
- I then assumed No. 4 boiler room making seven compartments flooded, and got a red broken line; the point being that with this condition reached and the object of drawing the plan in this way being to show that if these compartments up to this point had been flooded, that no extension or re-arrangement of bulkheads in the ship would have saved her. The last red broken line is marked (h-h1).
The witness, to assist Court in understanding the diagram, illustrated by means of a model his theory which had been developed on the diagram Petitioner's Exhibit 6.
Q. This diagram, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, as to that, the evidence that you have given is of course hypothetical.
- Entirely.
Q. But as to the process by which these holds were flooded, it is correct mathematically, I suppose?
- It is correct.
Q. It is correct, as the other diagrams that you put in?
- Yes.
Q. Worked out in the same way?
- Worked out in the same way.
Q. To put this plainly, it proves apparently that if certain compartments of the Titanic were flooded she was a doomed ship?
- She undoubtedly was.
Q. What compartments must be flooded in order to doom her?
- The first five.
Q. Including what?
- The forepeak, No. 1 hold, No. 2 hold, No. 3 hold and No. 6 boiler room, as shown by the blue area and lines on Petitioner's Exhibit 6.
Q. The bulkheads as indicated of these compartments run to what deck?
- To E deck forward, except the collision bulkhead.
Q. This is E deck (indicating)?
- This is E deck.
It is marked E deck.
The Witness:
The collision bulkhead goes to D deck on this plan.
Q. If the bulkhead abaft No. 6 boiler room had been carried up above E deck to D deck would it have saved the ship?
Mr. Foster:
Objected to as improper, incompetent and asking the witness to testify to matters about which he can have no knowledge whatever.
The Court:
Objection over-ruled, it being assumed that the witness is now testifying upon the hypothesis heretofore stated.
Mr. Foster:
I object further on the ground that there is no specific evidence as to what parts of the vessel were struck.
The Court:
He may answer.
- Assuming that there was no damage abaft the bulkhead it might have saved the ship.
Q. Assuming that there was damage: abaft No. 6. boiler room, say in No. 5 boiler room, would the extension of the bulkhead up to D deck have saved the ship, in your opinion?
- It would certainly not.
Q. Suppose there was damage in No. 4 boiler room, the one with the pink hatched lines. What height of bulkhead would have been necessary to prevent the ship from sinking?
- No height of bulkhead; it might have been extended to the funnel top and she would have gone down.
Q. Why?
- Because the water had then got over the boat deck for more than half the length of the vessel.
Q. I would like to ask you some questions now abort the watertight doors in the bulkheads. (Producing photograph to witness) Is this a picture of one of them?
- Yes. It was one erected for testing purposes before it actually went into the ship.
Q. I observe that to the left of the photograph there is an opening, as if a plate were missing? What is that?
- That corresponds to a closer plate on the bulkhead which would be riveted up when the ship was nearing completion.
Q. Describe in a general way the construction of the watertight doors.
- A heavy cast iron door sliding in a heavy cast iron frame, the two being carefully machined and the frame having wedges on it so that when the door was lowered it was wedged home and the two machined faces coming together were made watertight.
Q. How are they controlled?
- They arm controlled from four positions. Electrically, from the bridge, by hand, from the deck at the top of the bulkheads; by hand, adjacent to the doors, and by a float under the floors.
Q. When closed from the bridge by electricity, can they be opened?
- No, not without permission from the bridge, by unclosing the switch.
Q. That would have to be by a request from the bowels of the ship to the bridge, and then by turning the switch?
- By the hand of the officer on watch, under whose control it is.
Q. Was that a special provision of the Titanic, or is that common?
- It was fitted for the first time in the Olympic.
The photograph is offered in evidence and is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 of this date.
BY THE COURT
Q. Does the whole control of this electrical arrangement come from the bridge?
- The control came entirely from the bridge.
Q. It could not be electrically controlled from any other part of the vessel?
- No.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. How many of these doors were there?
- I am not quite sure; about a dozen.
Q. It is indicated on the plan?
- It is indicated on the plan.
Q. Was there more than one in any bulkhead?
- No.
Q. What about the strength of these doors?
- Tested before going out to the ship in the shops, when under construction.
Q. What is the test of bulkheads themselves, the usual test, apart from the tensile strength test which I assume is universal?
- Only by inspection and hose tests.
Q. Is that the usual method?
- That is the usual method.
Q. What puts the strain in the way of water on a bulkhead? Is it the body of water alongside of it, or is it the height of the water?
- It is the height of the water entirely; the body is quite immaterial..
Q. It is the pressure from above?
- It is the pressure from above.
Q. Would the mass of water -- tons of water in a compartment, have any effect on the collapsibility of a bulkhead?
- It would not.
Q. Tell me briefly something about the steering gear, and the reversing gear of the vessel; was there anything exceptional about it?
- Yes; an unusual amount of power was provided, a 3-cylinder engine adopted to get an equal turning moment so that one could start promptly in any position, and two engines provided, two separate and independent engines provided in case of a. breakdown, so far as steering was concerned. The reversing engines in the engine room were of quite the usual type, but of course at a size to suit the heavy machinery.
Q. Tell me briefly about the pumping arrangements of the ship.
- They were unusually elaborate, and so arranged that any compartment which was flooded could be isolated, together with any valve in it left open; and that no matter what pair of compartments in the machinery space might be flooded, pumps could still be applied to any compartment in the ship.
Q. Now speak for a moment of the electrical machinery of the ship; where was it situated?
- The main electric engines were in a separate watertight room abaft the low pressure turbine.
Q. How were they protected from collision?
- They were protected by the sides of the watertight box being a long way in from the shell of the ship.
Q. Were there emergency dynamos anywhere?
- There were emergency dynamos placed on D deck; two of them above the level of the top of the bulkheads. The steam pipe connections were so arranged that they could get steam from any boilers in the ship.
Q. What about the wireless equipment? Was it a long range?
- The Olympic had the first long range -- about 500 miles by day -- the first long range ship equipment. There were longer ranges ashore.
Q. Any difference at night?
- The range is much. greater at night; three to four times.
BY THE COURT:
Q. What apparatus was installed, do you know?
- The Marconi.
Q. You don't know what cycle the motor generator was?
- I could not tell you. We didn't furnish it; we only installed what the Marconi Company supplied to us.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. What about the telephonic communication in the ship?
- Very thorough between the responsible departments of the ship; not available for passengers.
Q. Did you have submarine signalling apparatus?
- Yes.
Q. Then did you have Morse Code flashing equipment?
- Yes, two; one at each wing of the bridge, on the shelter.
Q. Did you leave watertight decks on the Titanic?
- Only in certain restricted spaces; there was no watertight deck extending through the length of the vessel.
Q. At that time when the Titanic was constructed, and now, in shipbuilding, merchant vessels, are there watertight decks?
- No, not usually.
Q. Have you known any instance of watertight decks the whole length of the ship?
- I know of one, in merchant steamers.
Q. What is that?
- In the Aquitania.
Q. The new Aquitania?
- The new Aquitania, this reply, of course, being limited to ocean-going ships.
Q. Is it a matter of discussion among shipbuilders, the question of watertight decks, as to whether they are desirable or not?
- Yes.
Q. What are the advantages and what are the disadvantages of watertight decks in ocean-going steamers?
- Taking the advantage first, that in the case of a long ripping blow, such as the Titanic experienced, low down in the hull, or a local accident by grounding, the loss of buoyancy is much less, and therefore the safety of the ship is much greater.
Q. So that if the Titanic had had the full length of the ship watertight decks, it would have been of inestimable value to her in an accident like this?
- It would have saved the ship.
Q. At that tine was there any ocean-going steamship that you are aware of that had such a deck?
- Not a complete one.
Q. What partial decks do you know about?
- We had a partial deck; the Lusitania and Mauretania had a more extensive partial deck.
Q. How extensive was their watertight deck?
- It extended fore and aft, except in two spaces; one in the machinery space and one of the cargo holds forward.
Q. You knew the Lusitania, did you not?
- Certainly; she was the opposition ship.
Q. You made a trip on her?
- I did; I was also on her once or twice during construction.
Q. Did you come over on her on her maiden voyage?
- No, on her sixth voyage.
Q. Did you go through the ship thoroughly?
- I did.
Q. You are familiar, of course, with the plans of all the great ships that have been built?
- In general; it is part of one's business to be.
Q. Are there any other advantages?
- None that I know of.
BY THE COURT:
Q. When you say watertight decks, how many decks are you referring to?
- A watertight deck; I said one watertight deck, one deck that is watertight as distinct from weathertight..
Q. Which deck would that have been on the Titanic?
- It could have been any one of the decks at or below the level of the top of the bulkhead; it could have been, for safety.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. In other words, an accident of the character of this which the Titanic suffered would not have doomed the ship if there had been a watertight deck the length of the ship on a level or below the height of the bulkheads; is that it?
- Quite right.
Q. Now, what are the disadvantages, if any?
- There are disadvantages; and the principal one is that in the event of an injury not being confined to a ripping injury low down in the ship it is possible that the water will almost certainly get on top of the deck; water getting on top of the deck and leaving the buoyancy below it makes the ship top heavy and capsize within a few minutes. I have some reason to believe, and it was from estimates that I personally made, that that was what happened to the Empress of Ireland; that the deck, though not strictly watertight, was sufficiently watertight to prevent the water from getting down.
Objected to.
The Court:
Decision reserved.
BY THE COURT:
Q. You have just spoken, in calling attention to the disadvantages from your point of view, of a blow or of an accident other than a ripping; do you mean by that a hole in the boat?
- Yes.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. Do you mean such as a heavy collision would make?
- That is what I mean.
Q. A heavy collision at perhaps nearly right angles to the side of the ship?
- No; rather a heavy collision of a diagonal character.
Q. Which would open a considerable part of her side or tanks?
- Which would open a considerable part of her side, a considerable length of the ship; that is the physical disadvantage.
The other disadvantage is mainly a commercial one; any deck being watertight means that you cannot put passengers below it and it is quite difficult to work cargo through it because it means a very long trunk hatch; consequently, it makes carriage of cargo expensive; when, if you put it high up, it cuts out passengers and so makes the ship commercially at a disadvantage.
Then a further disadvantage of another character is that for the safely secured by a watertight deck, the watertight deck has to be very carefully and thoroughly kept up, and a great deal of money and time and trouble would be spent in keeping it in a watertight condition.
Q. You used the term "weathertight deck"?
- That is quite different from watertight.
Q. You used watertight in the same sense as attached to a deck that you apply it to a bulkhead?
- Yes.
Q. But a weathertight deck is one that keeps ordinary water out?
- That keeps rain and the sea, shipped in an ordinary normal manner from going down into the ship.
Q. Is there any requirement of Lloyds or the British Board of Trade with regard to watertightness of decks?
Mr. Betts:
Objected to as immaterial.
The Court:
Decision reserved.
A. There is no requirement of a watertight deck in the sense which I have used watertightness, against pressure; they do require a deck which is weathertight, and in some cases I believe it is referred to as a watertight deck; but they don't require it of a character to stand much pressure.
Mr. Betts:
I move to strike out the answer as stating the contents of written rules.
The Court:
Decision reserved.
Q. Are there written rules on this subject?
- Yes, there are written rules on this subject.
Q. Have you got them? Are they available?
- Well, Lloyds could furnish them here, yes; I have not got them with me, but it is also a matter of practice, as well as what is written.
Q. What is the practice of the Board of Trade?
Mr. Foster:
Objected to on the ground that the witness has stated that it is in writing.
The Court:
I will take it. Decision reserved.
- The Board of Trade do test decks for watertightness because they insist on flooding locally and trying with a hose the deck which they propose to make tight, to prevent water going down.
Q. Was that done on the Titanic by the Board of Trade?
- It was
Q. How did it stand the test?
- It stood the test, or else they wouldn't have passed her.
Q. Can you tell us about the Lusitania's decks from your actual knowledge of her?
Mr. Foster:
Objected to.
The Court:
Decision reserved.
- Only to a limited extent.
Q. Were they watertight?
- One deck -- I have forgotten its lettering, but in the region of the waterline, was made watertight, except in two parts, as I have already explained.
Q. The engine room?
- One part in the way of the engine room and one part in No. 3 cargo hold.
Q. What was done in the engine room to obviate the difficulty of the break in watertightness?
- A watertight trunk was carried up to the level of the top of the watertight bulkhead; a watertight casing was built around the hole that extended vertically to the height of the top of the watertight bulkhead. In the case of the cargo hold nothing was done.