In a poll topic labeled Andrew hero? or as guilty as Ismay...I have decided to do much research...
I have already done the research through court documents to clear Ismay...after the 1997 film made him look snooty. And now Andrews was being questioned
"how could Andrews allow the ship to leave...knowing there wasn't enough life boats on board?" True statement...great question..so I researched to find the answer. Here's what I found:

The British Board of trade rules were drafted in 1894...by 1912 these regulations were badly out of date. The Titanic was 4x larger than the largest legal classification, so by law the ship was not required to carry more than 16 lifeboats regardless of the actual people on board. When Titanic left South Hampton, Andrews made sure there were more life boats on board than the law required by adding 4 collapsible life boats. The shipping industry was aware that the laws were going to change, so Titanic was built with enough deck space to accomodate the "boats for all" policy, but until the law actually changed...White Star was not going to install them. Remember, this is back in 1912...attitude towards accident prevention was different back then...they were more concerned with how much space the life boats would take up.

So...honestly I think Andrews was just doing the best he could according to law and society of that time...we have a much different attitude now...but we have learned unfortunately through many disasters such as Titanic...to make accident prevention #1.

Questions and comments are welcome

AND TO ADD THIS...

It was only after the World Trade Center was attacked and approx. 3000 people were killed, that the United States decided to implement new laws and stricter regulations for flying. Just like new laws for more lifeboats were implemented after the Titanic went down...we are a society that is still growing and learning... 95 years from now someone is going to look at the World Trade Center as how "stupid" we were, and why didn't they do this, that and the other thing...if they did, that disaster would have never happened.

SeaRiggs,

Thank you for your comments. I am the person who originally started the question if Andrews was as "guilty" as Ismay.

The reason I started it, is that I feel that film and popular culture have stigmatized some of Titanic's passengers to the extream ends of the spectrum, ie- Ismay is a coward, and Andrews was a total hero.

Well, as you stated, Andrews did want four more boats. However, Alexander Carlisle, who was first in command of Titanic's constuction, wanted almost double the amount of boats, because he did realize that the boad of trade laws were out of date.

When White Star protested this, Carlisle aparently left the project (I admit I do not know the specific reasons) and Andrews took over as head of construction.

And therefore, I was trying to argue that it was just as neglegent for Andrews to let the ship leave Belfast with that low number of boats, as it was for Ismay to urge (if he indeed ever did) Captain Smith to push Titanic's speed higher when he knew that there was ice fields ahead.

However, with all said (and like you stated), the mindset back then was that Titanic was the ultimate technology that could beat nature.

Andrews being a person who knew Titanic's physical limits in regards to design, might have viewed 20 boats as a well guarded calculated risk to "acomidate the client" as Walter Lord once stated.

Furthermore, I have always asked, "how can Ismay be blamed for being what he was - a businessman? Why is he excluded from also possibly wanting to take a calculated risk? The ship was "practically unsinkable". Furthermore, he had no last say over the command of the ship at sea.

So, I have asked many people here, how can he be blaimed and Andrews exonerated if they took the same risk due to their beliefs?

In closing, Its hard for me to blame anyone, when it comes down to it.

Good comments by the way!

Thankyou for your comments as well MGY...I love the points that you bring up...it always encourges me to keep doing research to get answers for questions we have.
The more I dig...the more I learn...and its so nice to have such great people to talk and discuss things with. Thanks for sharing.
AND please know that I didn't rush to clear Andrews name after I read what you had posted...It was such a good and facinating question that I just got addicted to finding out what happened.
I just think it was a series of unfortunate events that led to titanics tragic end.

One of my favorite parts of Titanis(1997) was when Andrews is showing them around and states "Yes, enough for about half. I wanted to place more but the Board of Trade wouldn't allow it...." Then Cal going "Waste of deck space on an unsinkable ship."

Ironic....I wonder if Andrews really wanted to put more boats? AS MGY said, he only wanted 4...not much of a difference but more lives could have been saved.

Well look!!!! It's Mac from First Class

Welcome,
Keep this in mind about Thomas Andrews...he took the place of a man before him (and I can't think of his name right now...I just had it a moment ago....I hate it when that happens). The man before him was fired from White Star because he kept pushing for more lifeboats to be placed aboard Titanic. Andrews took his place and managed to get 4 more placed on board...however, he probably would have gotten fired too, for pushing more lifeboats. White Star would have kept hiring people to take their place until they had gotten what they wanted. I don't think Andrews really agreed with White Star...but he tried to accomodate both passenger and company...searching for a compromise. Not thinking that the unthinkable was going to occur on Titanic. Imagine what must have raced through his mind the moment he realized Titanic was going to sink. It's no wonder he didn't try for a lifeboat..he knew there wasn't enough. As a gentleman I don't think he would have set foot in a life boat. But I think the company was more to blame than Andrews....but the moment that happened...I bet Andrews blamed himself.

What you are saying makes sense, think of the era. People had to obey those in higher command. Did he really want more boats? Possibly. Did he go out of his way to do so? No. Is he a hero in this disaster? Not really to any extent. Is he a coward? No by any means.

in my mind hind sigght is twenty twenty. To look back it is easy for us to say that he shoul dhave had more lifeboats but back then they had every reason to believe the ship woul dnever need them. The witer tight doors, and also some changes made during the construstion lead to this belief. When the Olympic went out for her sea trials they noticed at top sppeds the ship "breathing" meaning the steel would bow out a little, in seeing this they added more steel to Titanic and that was when the promanode deack was enclosed(they thought by adding more steel the ship would be stronger) so Andrews did take steps to fix any problems he saw.

Hi Lilcandycane,

I agree with you in that Andrews practised a philosophy of continuous improvement. His notes on Olympic's maiden voyage (see here: http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/THOMAS%20ANDREWS'%20OLYMPIC%20NOTES%201911%20(text%20box).htm ) attest to that.

Quote:

Bear in mind that those particular claims are far from established fact. I am aware that they were used on the recent television documentary, but the factual basis for them is not clear at all and no documentation has been produced to support either claim.

The claim about 'breathing' (actually 'panting') is a case in point. There were specific features of the hull design intended to prevent such a defect, and in comparison with her peers there seems no reason to suspect Olympic was defective in that regard. A large number of technical specialists have addressed those claims and refuted them.

In terms of the promenade deck, this was part of the ship's superstructure and did not impart any strength to the hull girder.

Best wishes,

Mark.

In my post above, you'll need to cut and paste the entire url into your browser (right up to .htm). The url is not a prime example of best practise!