I wasted an hour of my life last night watching this.
Talk about over-produced hyped up horseshit.
If the progremme had not constantly repeated itself it could have been a third of the length.
So-called new evidence was sketchy in the extreme; but aren't the luvvies clever at reanimating old photographs.
At least it was not presented by Kate Humble.
Happy New Year campers.
En el artículo , Vortex12 escribió:
My thoughts exactly. An hour of my life I'll never get back.
It would be interesting to know if the team that found and are exploring the ship have managed to get down to the boiler rooms, which might help disprove the theory one way or t'other.
Didn't bother to watch it - living near Southampton, I'm bored to death with the Titanic. It's a ship. It sank. As my mother used to say, worse disasters happen at sea.
Who's she? No, sorry, it's OK, don't tell me.
There's a chap we know locally who was on the Lancastria in WW2. Spent
9 hours in the water after it was sunk. He 101 now, starting to look a bit frail.
The sub-standard steel thread of discussion just petered out.
It's curious that sister ship Olympic (made presumably from the same steel in the same yard) lasted over 25 years before being scrapped.
Perhaps it never had a bunker fire. How common were they, anyway?
Thanks for the heads-up; I can wizz through my recording in no time!
And in Barnsley they still bang on about pit disasters:-) Twas the Oaks disasters 150th anniversary last month.
So it was coal that sunk the Titanic? Was it Barnsley coal?, best coal in the world:-)
You cannot burn incriminating evidence with a WB combi boiler or come up with excuses at school such as "Sir my Dad was pissed on Sunday and he used my homework to light the fire".
Why such a short life?
NT
According to Wikipedia: Competition from German & French rivals as wellas the arrival of the "modern" Queen Mary. I also suspewct that by the mid
1930s coal fired boilers wer going out of fashion.
Royal Navy ships shifted to oil much earlier than that.
The other point is that those liners were not turbine driven either - they still used reciprocating engines.
'Fraid I didn't see it. New evidence for what?
Marine steam turbines were first used in Turbinia in 1894 and demonstrated to the navy top brass at the Spithead review in 1897.
The Titanic had a combination of reciprocating piston engines and a low-pressure turbine on the end, but was coal fired.
The claim is that Titanic sailed with a coal bunker fire in progress, and that by the time the coal was shifted, the adjacent bulkhead had been fatally weakened so that it failed rather than holding the sea back after the iceberg strike (which would supposedly have allowed enough time for everyone to be saved).
Ta! I wondered if it was related to the conspiracy theory which says that the identities of the Titanic and Olympic were swapped, and that it was actually the Olympic which sank.
It will be crap rivets next!
Didn't they do that a few years ago? And they showed the rivets were no different to any of that time.
If she had hit the iceberg head-on, and only stove in the bows, she would have survived, because fewer compartments would have flooded, but steering to try and avoid the iceberg was actually her undoing.
I'm just amazed she made to to the moon.
The Winky article says that IIRC the cast iron rivets were at the limit of their capabilities, but as you say that was probably SOP for the day. As was not having enough life boats, which was standard practice.
I noted the Winky articles make no mention of fire at all. They do mention the turbine, which, when the ship was put into reverse, unlike the other engines could not be reversed, so it was stopped, along with its centrally located prop. Which apparently reduced the effectiveness of the rudder. IOW, if he'd just steered and left the engines at full ahead, he'd have missed the iceberg.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.