Titanic Home

On May 31, 2009 the last living survivor of the Titanic disaster, Millvina Dean, passed away. She was 97 years of age.

The History of the RMS Titanic:

The Titanic was intended to be the second of the Olympic-class liners. No one could have predicted, however, that she would end her career only five days into her maiden voyage, and that she would become the most famous Atlantic liner of the twentieth century.

She started life as Harland & Wolff Hull No. 401, and was built alongside her older sister. At the time of her launch, on May 31, 1911, she was virtually indistinguishable from the Olympic. During her fitting-out process, however, some changes were made to her design that made her slightly larger in enclosed space than the Olympic (some 1,004 tons, to be exact). Her B Deck staterooms were increased in number, effacing the Enclosed First Class Promenades and changing her exterior window configuration. Her First Class Restaurant was increased in size due to the popularity of the Olympic's Restaurant. A new French sidewalk cafe termed the "Cafe Parisian" was installed on the starboard side of the Restaurant. Down below, on D Deck, the First Class Reception Room was enlarged. Above, on A Deck, the ship's forward Promenade Deck was screened off with square sliding windows to protect passengers from the elements. To prevent foul weather and winds from funneling down the length of the deck, a bulwark was erected just under the port and starboard Bridge wings which contained both a door and window each.

The Titanic's fitting-out was interrupted twice by the Olympic, and this eventually delayed her maiden voyage from March 20 to April 10, 1912. Her sea trials were scheduled to take place on April 1, but due to bad weather these were delayed to April 2. They were carried out over the course of several hours, and the ship passed with flying colors. Her passenger certificate was signed, 'good for one year' - and this despite the fact that the ship carried enough lifeboats for only 1/3 of her potential full capacity of passengers and crew.

The ship sailed down to Southampton that evening. Over the course of the following days, final preparations were made to complete the ship and ready her for the maiden trip. This included ensuring that she had enough coal for her trip, a difficulty since a coal strike that had nearly crippled the British shipping industry had only just ended. The Titanic had a normal coal-carrying capacity of 6,611 tons (an additional 1,092 tons could be carried in a reserve coal bunker). By the time the Titanic left, those in charge of the matter had managed to provide her with 5,892 tons of coal. This meant that the ship had 89.12% of her ordinary coal carrying capacity on board when she left Southampton on April 10. These calculations finally lay to rest the myth that the Titanic was short of coal during that abortive voyage.

During the morning of Wednesday, April 10, the ship took on her first - and, it would turn out, her only - batch of passengers and crew. She left shortly after noon, and the maiden voyage nearly ended before it even began; as she passed the tied up liner New York, the suction from her passage through the water drew the smaller liner away from her pier, parted her lines and almost made her collide with the behemoth. Only quick action by the Harbor Pilot and Captain, as well as tugboats on the scene, prevented the collision.

That this collision was averted turned out, in the long run, to be a tragedy in and of itself.

The ship called briefly at Cherbourg, France that evening, to off-load some cross-channel passengers and to pick up more passengers and mail, and then called at Queenstown (now Cobh) Ireland the next morning.

By the time the Titanic left Queenstown that afternoon, there were 2,208 passengers and crew aboard. As she progressed westward, her speed was gradually increased. Her daily runs were as follows:

Although no run was officially taken from noon Sunday to noon Monday (for obvious reasons), it is quite clear from passenger testimony that by Sunday evening, the ship had sped up again. According to those on duty at the time of the collision, all 24 of her 'main' boilers were operating at full pressure, and the ship was making about 22 1/2 knots according to the Cherub Log. A 'full speed' test had been agreed upon for Monday by the ship's Captain and White Star's Managing Director, J. Bruce Ismay, and there is clear evidence to show that there was a plan to - weather permitting - bring the ship into New York on Tuesday night rather than Wednesday morning.

Especially during Sunday, April 14, numerous ice warnings came into the ship via wireless. Even so, there was no diminution of speed. The results were predictable, if catastrophic: at 11:40 p.m. (ship time) Titanic struck an iceberg. Six small areas of damage were punched in her forward, starboard hull plates, and water began entering her forward six compartments. Her forward five compartments were flooding uncontrollably, and her designer, Thomas Andrews predicted that she would be able to remain afloat for an hour to an hour and a half.

Work quickly began on lowering the lifeboats. The best-researched timeline for the lifeboat launching work can be found in the newly-revised article, "Titanic: Lifeboat Launching Times Re-Examined," by Bill Wormstedt, Tad Fitch and George Behe. Make sure to view the article to see the results of their research for yourself. By the time the Titanic sank at 2:20 a.m. (ship's time), only 712 of her 2,208 passengers and crew had been safely evacuated. 1,496 perished in the icy seas that night. (Please note that these figures are based upon the research of Lester Mitcham, co-author of Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal, and represent the most accurate analysis of the number aboard the doomed ship, and of those rescued.)

The wreck of the Titanic was discovered on September 1, 1985 by Dr. Robert D. Ballard in a joint U.S.-French expedition. Over subsequent years, salvage efforts have recovered hundreds of items from the site, and three expeditions by film director James Cameron have added immeasurably to the collective wealth of knowledge about the Titanic. Sadly, it has become clear that the wreck is beginning to give way to the elements and is deteriorating rapidly.

A renewed wave of interest in the Titanic followed the December 19, 1997 release of James Cameron's film "Titanic" which shows very little signs of letting up; there is just no quenching the public's thirst for knowledge about the now-legendary liner. In October of 2005, Cameron released a Special Edition DVD which included many of the historical deleted scenes from the '97 film. On April 6, 2012, the film will be re-released in theaters; it is currently underoing conversion to 3-D, and will be shown in both standard and 3-D formats in theaters during the centennial anniversary of the disaster.

Coming Soon:

Lifeboat Launching Sequence and Timeline: From the time of the initial inquiries into the disaster, attempts were made to establish the time of launch for each of the ship's twenty lifeboats. What time did the first one, Boat No. 7, depart? In what order were they lowered away from the deck? Is it likely that the first lifeboat was lowered away far earlier than has been previously supposed, or does a preponderence of the evidence support a timeline closer to that which was arrived at by the formal inquiries? Separate fact from fiction in the newly-revised article, "Titanic: Lifeboat Launching Sequence Re-Examined," by Bill Wormstedt, Tad Fitch and George Behe. This article was originally published in The Titanic Commutator, in abridged format, but has recently been revised and expanded by the authors. As you will see, the most in-depth research on the subject has turned up some startling evidence.

The Titanic & The Californian: Perhaps more than any other aspect of the Titanic story, this subject sparks the most debate, controversy, and even ill-will among Titanic researchers. The most succinct, accurate and inclusive article on the subject presented to date is authored by veteran Titanic researcher Sam Halpern. Follow this link to read "Rockets, Lifeboats, and Time Changes."

I was pleased to be a part of the research group the developed both of the above articles.

This video is of the Titanic in the Belfast Graving Dock. Her B Deck window configuration has already been changed, but her A Deck Promenade remains open.

Further Information on R.M.S. Titanic:

Table ~ Commanding Officers of the Titanic, April 10-15, 1912:

*Captain*	Edward John Smith, R.N.R.
*Chief Officer*	Henry T. Wilde
*First Officer*	William McMaster Murdoch
*Second Officer*	Charles H. Lightoller
*Third Officer*	Herbert J. Pitman
*Fourth Officer*	Joseph G. Boxhall
*Fifth Officer*	Harold Godfrey Lowe
*Sixth Officer*	James P. Moody

Controversial Points:

There always have been and always will be questions about what really happened on the night that the Titanic met her horrible fate. Many of these questions have been answered by the two formal investigations into the disaster, or over the years by various historians and scientists, who all add their findings into the collective story of the ship’s loss. Other questions can only be answered with new scientific discoveries and forensic analysis made on the wreck today by various organizations and science teams. Many more are not answerable, and we only have a few tantalizing clues as to the truth about what took place.

However, it one carefully pieces the evidence from numerous eyewitness accounts and recent scientific discoveries together, it is surprising how much can actually be ascertained about some of these matters. The truth that one discovers in the process can sometimes be just as surprising. Research on such topics as the iceberg damage, the band's actions during the sinking, what their last song was, the incidents of gunfire during the sinking, and many others, can all be found in the new book On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic.

Perhaps all of these controversial matters, and all of the what-ifs associated with the great ship and her sinking are a part of the reason why the ship has fascinated so many for nearly a full century. Even now, there is a massive interest in the ship and in the people that sailed aboard her. Certainly, the Titanic disaster has become legendary as a symbol of man’s arrogance falling before the whims of nature, and she was an object lesson that is still as modern as the day she sank. That lesson is still felt every time there is an airplane crash, another sea disaster, an earthquake or a flood – and even on September 11, 2001.

Her legendary status has evoked more attention than any other Atlantic liner has ever received, and nine decades after the tragedy, we are still fascinated by her life and loss. Why? Because it’s the Titanic…

To see new three-dimensional graphic renderings of the Titanic by Christian Stenfelt, please click here.

Titanic FAQ's:

Q: Were the Titanic and her sister ship, Olympic, switched as part of some sort of conspiracy?
A: No. Some years ago, the theory that the Olympic and Titanic were switched was put forth. Ostensibly, the "switch" took place after the collision of the Olympic and the Hawke. It was proposed that the White Star Line discovered that the damage to the Olympic from that collision was much greater than they let on, and that she was going to be just too costly to repair. Thus, the Olympic and the Titanic were switched and the heavily damaged Olympic, it is said, was the vessel that was deliberately sunk on April 14-15 as part of an insurance scam. It is she, it is alleged, that rests on the sea floor today. The books that propose the theory are so cleverly put together that many people with no more than a passing interest in the story of the Titanic have been led to believe that the theory has been proved true by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

A detailed investigation of the facts, however, shows that the theory is full of holes, half-truths and mistakes. For one thing, the Olympic and Titanic were had numerous small yet clear and quantifiable differences - far more than the configuration of the windows on A and B Decks. They include numerous ventilator configuration differences, changes in porthole placement, and shell plating differences (for example, in the vicinity of the anchors forward). All of these details, quite small, add up to two distinctly different ships. Additionally, there were hidden details that could only be seen later on. For example, the ships' hull numbers, 400 and 401, were stamped into the backs of the pieces of decorative wooden paneling that graced their many rooms, both public and private. When the Olympic's fittings were auctioned off prior to her scrapping, much of her paneling was saved and still exists today, all clearly stamped with the "400" yard number. Unless every scrap of paneling was switched out of the Olympic, something that would have been impossible given the known time constraints, the ship scrapped over twenty years after the mid-Atlantic disaster was clearly the Olympic. The ships' yard numbers were also visible on the propellers, and the hull number "401" has been spotted on the Titanic wreck's port prop. Various items recovered from the wreck site have also been found stamped with the yard number "401."

The upshot is that if the two ships were going to be switched, there was an incredible amount of work that had to be done in a very short period of time, (since the two ships were together in Belfast for only very specific and well-documented periods of time). Also of note is that Harland & Wolff had their photographer, Robert Welch, moving around the yard, frequently snapping photographs away of both ships during their time together and during various phases of the Titanic's construction - and no photos of the alleged "switch" in progress have ever turned up. Many of these photos also show non-shipyard employees milling around the Olympic in early March of 1912. Thus, the "switch" theory depends on the silence of the many thousands of workers from White Star and Harland & Wolff, as well as many civilians who visited the yard ... this is something that is notoriously difficult to rely on, and yet no thoroughly documented and wholly reliable first-hand accounts of a switch have ever been presented. For further information, please refer to On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic.

While the "switch" theory is advanced in a variety of books by author Robin Gardiner, a complete analysis of the subject can be found in the new volume Titanic or Olympic: Which Ship Sank? The Truth Behind the Conspiracy by Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge. This book (published 3/2012) contains a wealth of photographic and documented evidence, and the authors follow the evidence to its natural conclusion. Another excellent examination of the subject can be found in Mark Chirnside's dissertation, online at his web site. (Adobe Acrobat pdf reader is required.)

Q: Was the strength of the Titanic’s hull insufficient or of a poor design?
A: No. Allegations have been made that Harland & Wolff built the Titanic (and Olympic) to a poorer standard of design than other ships of the era. The thickness of her hull plating and also of her rib spacing have come into question; the upshot of these allegations is that the frames should have been much closer together, and the hull plating much thicker, than it was built.

These allegations are absolutely absurd. The Olympic and Titanic were designed by what was arguably the premiere shipbuilding firm in the world at the time. Although these two ships were significantly larger than any other liners previously built, they were designed and constructed on time-tested principles of ship construction. Additionally, shipbuilding at the time was an extremely competitive business – for Harland & Wolff to build the largest ships in the world to a slipshod level of strength would have been a shortsighted business decision, indeed.

Simply comparing the design of the Titanic’s hull with that of other ocean liners should lay this allegation to rest entirely:

The frame spacing for the Titanic and both of her sisters was: 36 inches amidships, narrowing to 24 inches at the bow and 27 inches at the stern. The plates attached over the keel bar, or the “A” strake, were 30/20” thick, narrowing to 24/20”. The plating at the turn of the bilge was typically over one inch thick for 2/5ths of her length. In some places, such as the reinforced areas of her hull at the B and C Deck levels, plates were doubled to create an overall thickness of 3”.

The frame spacing for the Lusitania was: 32” for ¾ of her length amidships, narrowing to 25” aft and 26” forward. Her hull plating was typically 22/20” thick, thinning to only 12/20” thick fore and aft (where the frame spacing narrowed), and it was doubled in places up to 2 3/20”. Interestingly, Engineering magazine noted that the holes in the Lusitania ’s “intermediate longitudinals… are placed with their larger dimension running vertically instead of horizontally. This was because of the comparative closeness of the frames.” This sentence shows that the frame spacing on the Lusitania was ‘comparatively close’ as compared with that found on other previous liners. The Titanic’s arrangement was quite similar to that found on the Cunarder.

This comparison between the Titanic and the Lusitania is particularly interesting for several reasons. The Lusitania was specifically designed under the intense scrutiny of the Admiralty; the British Government had provided the loans for her construction, and they wanted to make sure that their design would serve them well in peace and in war. This latter point is particularly telling, because the Admiralty was planning to use the Lusitania as an armed auxiliary cruiser, with plans for her to sport an impressive armament of 6-inch guns in active service (detailed information on this can be found in my upcoming book on the Lusitania). She thus had to bear not only the strain of the weapons’ weight, but also their powerful recoil when in use. Titanic never had to bear any of this added weight or stress, and yet her hull design was comparatively similar to that of the Cunarder. Additionally, during construction of the Lusitania, a decision had been made to ‘cut away the deadwood’ of her hull aft. This was to allow a free-flow of water past her rudder for tight maneuvering. Thus, for a large stretch of her overall length aft, an arch was created. While the liner was in water, this posed no particular problem; however, during drydocking procedures, this design meant that the top of the hull would have to bear the enormous stretching stresses as it supported the entire aft end of the liner in the air. That need for the Lusitania's hull to combat just this tension shows just how powerfully built her hull was. As has already been seen, the Titanic’s hull was designed with similar frame and plating strengths, and yet it never had to combat any of these stresses. It is also interesting to note that John Brown, the shipyard that built the Lusitania, had an affiliation with Harland & Wolff that allowed them to share information, etc., between the two yards. Thus, in building larger ships than the Lusitania, Harland & Wolff could draw upon the experience of John Brown. (The Mauretania and later the Aquitania were designed in a very similar fashion to the Lusitania , as well.)

Perhaps, some might say, all of these ships did not have correct rib spacing, something that was corrected at a later date, and that would still leave the Titanic and all of these other ships with questionable hull design. Is this correct? No. More than twenty years after the Titanic, another ocean liner was built by John Brown. When she entered service, she was also the “largest vessel in the world.” Her length was also significantly greater than the Titanic, at 1,019 feet as opposed to 882 feet, and thus she was exposed to greater stresses over her entire length. She was the Queen Mary. Was the Queen Mary’s design drastically altered from that of the previous generation, like the Lusitania and Titanic? Had shipbuilders discovered a serious deficiency that they corrected in the newer liners? No. The Queen Mary’s rib spacing was 36” over the greater part of the vessel, narrowing to 24” at the fore and aft ends, even more closely matching that of the Titanic than the Lusitania. The Queen Mary sailed through virtually anything that any of the world’s oceans could throw her way over the years, and her hull’s strength was never in question. Today, some seventy years after she entered service, she is resting quietly in Long Beach, California, a model of strength and reliability.

Although the designs of the Olympic and Britannic were altered after the sinking of the Titanic, their rib-spacing never changed, and they proved quite strong. The Olympic’s hull integrity was never in serious question throughout her career. (Allegations of this nature have been leveled at her, but these were very nicely answered in Mark Chirnside’s book, RMS Olympic: Titanic’s Sister.) The Britannic sank in 1916, and fell at a very stressful angle onto the ocean floor; even so, her hull proved quite strong in the way it dealt with these stresses. Today, her hull retains its full width. Further information on this topic will be presented in On A Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic.

Q:What was the displacement of the Titanic?
A: The displacement (or the weight of the seawater that the ship would displace, an estimate of literal weight rather than of enclosed space) of the Olympic and Titanic have often been cited at 66,000 tons. Researcher Mark Chirnside has recently developed an excellent article, now available on his site, that proves this figure inaccurate. What was the actual displacement for the Olympic and the Titanic, then? (The Britannic's displacement was slightly greater due to her larger beam and other modifications made to her design.)

Since the weight of the vessel would vary depending on her load status (i.e., fuel, cargo, provisions, etc.), the measurement of 52,310 tons (British tons of 2,240 pounds, or just over 117 million pounds) cited above would apply to the ship at a draught of 34' 7". At a draught of 27' 10 1/2", she displaced 40,850 tons; at a hypothetical draught of 36' (deeper than her standard in service load), she would still displace less than 55,000 tons. The displacement of the Titanic at 34' 7" was quoted by Edward Wilding at the British Inquiry as being identical to the Olympic at the same draught.

Q: How many blades did Titanic's propellers have, and what were their sizes?
A: The two outboard wing propellers on the Titanic were each 23 ft 6 inches in diameter, sporting 3 blades each, with the blades bolted onto the heads. Their pitch was 35 ft. By way of comparison, the Olympic's original wing propellers were the same size and had the same number of blades, but had a pitch of only 33 feet. The Olympic, when first completed, sported a 16 ft 6 inch center propeller. It was made of a single cast, and had 4 blades. It has been often assumed that the Titanic's center propeller was essentially of the same, or of the exact same, design as her sister's, especially since the Britannic was eventually fitted with a 4-bladed propeller identical to Olympic's.

However, maritime researcher and author Mark Chirnside has recently written an article entitled, "The Mystery of Titanic's Central Propeller." (Published in Titanic International Society's quarterly journal Voyage, No. 63.) Therein, he cites original documented evidence from a period Harland & Wolff engineering notebook which gives the propeller and engine specifications for a number of vessels, including Olympic and Titanic. This evidence seems to suggest that Titanic was fitted with a 3-bladed center propeller with a diameter of 17 ft 0 in. In light of further photographic evidence (either of the wreck, or in original photographs from the period, either contradictory or supportive), this is the best evidence that we have on the design of TItanic's center propeller. I would highly recommend picking up a copy of Mr. Chirnside's full article so that you can review this new and fascinating information for yourself. -- My thanks to Bruce Beveridge for his willingness to answer a couple of questions on this particular subject, and to Mr. Chirnside for producing the original research on this matter.

R.M.S. Titanic

The History of the RMS Titanic:

Coming Soon:

Also of note ...

Further Information on R.M.S. Titanic:

Table ~ Commanding Officers of the Titanic, April 10-15, 1912:

Controversial Points:

To see new three-dimensional graphic renderings of the Titanic by Christian Stenfelt, please click here.

Titanic FAQ's: