Quote:

When you consider the bulkhead's height, had the entire bulkhead given way then the amount of water released into boiler room 5 would have been far more substantial than the flooding observed by Barrett. We're talking about a forty-foot head of water. Lord Mersey's technical assessors concluded that several hundred tons of water had flooded into the boiler room, 5, when the bunker doorway failed, as the bunker was not intended to bear a considerale head of water. I tend to agree.

Another point to consider is that the collapse of the bulkhead would have had ramifications for the hull itself. Edward Wilding is on record as stating that the watertight bulkheads provided some transverse strength, which was all the more valuable for when the ship was in drydock and the hull largely supported toward the keel. We know that both the plating and the frame spacing exceeded even Lloyd's regulations by a considerable amount, and the watertight bulkheads' connections to the decks were strong. Even if part of the bulkhead lost its watertight integrity, it would be far harder to imagine the entire bulkhead failing as portrayed in some accounts.

Best wishes,

Mark.