This is an interesting discussion and I only wish I had more time to contribute, as there seems to be some considerable confusion about some aspects.

Quote:

This is simply not true and I have already explained that on another thread on this forum. The evidence suggests that H&W were aware that the design could be improved, and were making those changes prior to Titanic's loss. That's the process of refinement and improvement, just as Titanic's B-deck suites were expanded and the A-deck promenade enclosed.

http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Olympic-Titanic_expansionjoints-achillesheel-_myth.html

You know, it's a shame the documentary makers seemed to be unaware of that.

Unfortunately, the myth that the expansion joints caused the ship to break apart is a persistent one, even if it has no basis in reality.

Quote:

Again, as I explained to you on this forum before, Lusitania, Mauretania and Aquitania all had expansion joints to a very similar design as Olympic's.

Quote:

The absense of a watertight deck is not necessarily a design flaw. It's a matter of choice. As regards water flowing over bulkheads, it is true that the watertight subdivision was overwhelmed. However, that was because the damage was simply too severe for the ship to survive. Olympic survived the Hawke collision perfectly well in 1911, despite severe and extensive flooding.

Best wishes,

Mark.