I didn't say Andrews ignored that, I said HE was ignored. And to Bell; true, but it wasn't impossible to have the Titanic done the way she was supposed to, they took the Olympic back in and did the Britannic right. So costs wasn't really a good excuse. Then again I suppose they didnt have much to learn from.

Jessica

Yes but the costs where buckling the company, and a buissness will not do anything it did not need to, like extend bulkheads because no such insodent had ever really happened and was not forseen. The saftey modification made to the sisters where not all justified and done to try and make the public less weary of traveling on a replica of the ill fated Titanic.

Murdoch tried his best.

Murdoch did what he could.

Every design has its limits, and it's said Titanic's tightest turning radius was not unreasonable, even by today's standards.

The design was not that bad. But the engine room (large open space) caused a weakness and the ship snapped in two. I wish she didn't break apart. That would have prevented alot of salvaging if the objects were still inside the ship.

i knew that the bulkheads were designed n done from G to E deck lol..

because Bruce Ismay thought that if they do it from G to A deck..
first class passengers would have had much more less space..

lol.. n yes.. i'm sure Mr. Andrews was ignored..

n if you see... all was Ismay's fault... damn idiot..!



cyaaaa

Quote:

A number of the watertight bulkheads extended to D-deck as well. Lord Mersey’s report has a table which gives the height of every watertight bulkhead in the ship.

Quote:

It’s interesting that a number of people on this thread have suggested that Andrews’ recommendations were ‘ignored.’ Where’s the primary source evidence for that?

My own view is that many of the design criticisms are only made as a result of hindsight. As others have pointed out, damage such as that Titanic suffered was not foreseen. Olympic’s collision with the Hawke in 1911 appeared to vindicate the design, when Olympic remained afloat and stable despite two large watertight compartments being completely flooded, and several hundred tons of water entering a third compartment. The Hawke had actually been designed to sink enemy ships by ramming them, which highlights the Olympic’s impressive performance, and this seems more impressive when we consider that the Olympic was calculated to remain afloat with four forward watertight compartments flooded.

Dealing with the issue of watertight bulkheads, for instance, the structural frames that formed part of the bulkheads were closer together than required by the regulations (making the bulkheads stronger); the scantlings (that is, the general thickness) were heavier than required by the regulations (the stiffening was up to 50% in excess of requirements); and the plating was 10-20% thicker than requirements. In all cases the bulkheads extended above the waterline by a distance greater than the regulations required. Lloyd’s rules for the number of main watertight compartments did not extend to a ship of the Titanic’s length in 1912, but had they done so a contemporary naval architect calculated that they would have required thirteen watertight compartments (as opposed to the sixteen main watertight compartments that Titanic actually had). Points such as these are rarely mentioned, whereas they highlight many aspects of the quality of Titanic’s design that often go un-remarked upon.

Best wishes,

Mark.

uh??

Hi TitanicSOUL,

I’m not sure what you’re asking? What are you ‘uh??’-ing about? I’m assuming you’re confused about something in my post above?

Is it my statement that ‘A number of the watertight bulkheads extended to D-deck as well’? That seems clear enough for people to understand.

Or is it my opinion that the Titanic’s design was much better than many people have thought? If so, I give plenty of reasons for that -- how the strength of the watertight bulkheads exceeded the regulations, etc.

Best regards,

Mark.