Why didn't Lightoller or Murdoch slow the Titanic down?

[David G. Brown]

Let's look at the fuel situation through 1912 eyes. There was good reason why Titanic bunkered 5,892 tons of coal when it left Southampton.

Assuming an average daily fuel consumption of 650 tons, over a seven day voyage the ship would be expected to consume 4,550 tons of coal. If so, the bunkers would be expected to have 1,342 tons remaining at arrival in New York. This is a bit more than the 1,000 tons Mark suggests as his "low" amount.

But, bunkering 4,550 tons of fuel (7 days X 650 tons) would not have been enough for safety. The ship needed a contingency reserve. The question is how much?

Today, we tend to consider safety reserve in percentages of fuel remaining. Since writing "Last Log," I've come to realize this is not a correct way to look at Titanic's situation in 1913. Unlike many Titanic researchers I reserve the right to refine my work over time and make corrections based on new information. In this case, I realize that percentages of fuel have no bearing on 1913 reality and must be discarded. It was not the percent in reserve that was critical, but the actual tonnage held back for contingencies.

The ship was too big for most port facilities. Special docks had to be constructed to handle the Olympic class ships because of their size. This created no particular problems as long as everything remained "nominal" on their voyages. However, should one of the ships have to divert to an alternative port in North America, things got dicey with regard to fuel capacity.

The closest port suitable for sheltering an Olympic class vessel without navigational risk and with suitable coaling facilities was Halifax. No ship has "enough" fuel aboard if it cannot safely divert from its port of destination to a second port. For Titanic, that meant it had to be able to complete its New York run with enough fuel to get to Halifax. It would have taken Titanic about a day and a half to go from New York to Halifax. From an operational standpoint, this is two days. At 650 tons per day, that's a minimum of 1,300 tons required for a safe trip.

So, Mark's minimum 1,000 tons reserve was insufficient for the safety of the ship by 300 tons, or about a half-day's steaming. (In discussions of safety you always take the worst possible case. If, as Mark suggests, the ship burned less than 650 tons per day there would be no harm done. However, lives could be lost if it burned more coal than anticipated.)

Looking at the numbers, the people who bunkered Titanic in 1913 realized the danger in not having the necessary fuel for two days of steaming in addition to the seven day New York passage. Adding the 4,550 tons needed for the planned voyage to the 1,300 tons needed to safely reach the best available alternative port yields 5,850 tons – almost precisely what was bunkered in Titanic.

Theoretically Required – 5,850 tons
Certified in Bunkers – 5,892 tons

Quite obviously, the ship was filled with the correct amount of coal for the voyage, but hardly a lump more.

But, at what speed?

This is a critical question because speed costs fuel. And, the last knot of speed costs geometrically more than the first knot. It appears that 650 tons was the anticipated burn in ordinary weather at 22 knots. At higher speeds, or in storms, the consumption would have markedly increased.

I've seen predictions of 850 tons/day at 23 knots which seem reasonable. If that were true, then Titanic's fuel load at Southampton was insufficient for a seven day voyage as 5,950 tons would have been required and there would have been no reserve for safety. At 24 knots, Titanic would have needed a tow about a day out of New York because it would have run out of coal to fire the boilers. As I stated in my book, the fuel simply was not aboard for a trans-Atlantic record setting run, even if Titanic could have been pushed to the required speed.

However, in reality the ship did not run at 22 knots for the whole trip. So, it is likely there would have been some days when less than 650 tons had been burned. Any un-burned fuel was available for the "speed run" on Monday that was implied in Bruce Ismay's New York testimony.

Or was there any "saved" fuel available from those slower speed days?

Titanic did not have all of the 5,892 tons of coal available for its furnaces. Some of that was consumed in the bunker fire. How much fuel was lost? Enough to make a difference? The answers to these questions are unknowable, even though they have a direct bearing on the discussion.

But, using the tonnage numbers we do know, and reasonable assumptions about fuel burn, it appears Titanic did have enough fuel aboard for the intended voyage, and for reaching a suitable alternative port – but nothing more. It did not have enough fuel loaded for any sort of record-setting trans-Atlantic voyage even if that had been possible in an Olympic class vessel.

My conclusions in "Last Log" about the fuel aboard versus a speed record were actually more correct than my explantion.

Back to the alleged "speed run" for a moment. While examination of the CQD coordinates confirms that Boxhall used 22 knots in explaining his navigation that night, there is compelling reason to believe the ship was making a higher speed at the time of the accident. The reasons for the discrepancy between Boxhall's 22 knots and this higher speed can only be conjectured.

It is not illogical to assume that the "speed run" (if there was one) began with 7:30 p.m. stars. That was an unusually good fix and the weather was favorable and getting better. A fix was needed to measure the actual distance travelled to get an accurate speed made good. And, calm conditions eliminated the loss of speed to punching into a sea.

IF the speed run was under way, one of the questions facing Captian Smith would have been, "How long can I continue at this higher speed?" There was a single answer to this question. It was a moving target that depended upon the ship's actual position, the remaining distance to New York, and the need to retain at least two day's fuel in reserve.

In any event, as I said in "Last Log," Captain Smith was getting down to the point where seamanship and not showmanship would have to control the ship's speed.

-- David G. Brown

[Mark Chirnside]

David,

I am pleased that you have decided to take a constructive approach and attempted to address at least some of the issues raised in this debate. There are, however, several misconceptions that I would like to comment on.

Before I do so, I wish to start by making it clear that the figure of 1,000 tons remaining in the bunkers upon arrival in New York is the most cautious estimate: not only does this one take into account the highest fuel consumption figures, but it has been further rounded down to the nearest hundred for the purposes of this discussion (from the exact figure of 1,049 tons).

The 'less cautious' estimate, if you will, is based upon lower fuel consumption figures which take into account Olympic's performance in service and comes to 1,654 tons.

You have cited the figure of 650 tons of coal per day several times during your analysis. The first problem we run into is that I have not used the figure of 650 tons per day; in fact, due to the cautious nature of my estimates the average consumption under my analysis works out higher than that. As a result, the figures you have calculated relying upon that are not in agreement.

The ship needed a contingency reserve. The question is how much? Today, we tend to consider safety reserve in percentages of fuel remaining. Since writing "Last Log," I've come to realize this is not a correct way to look at Titanic's situation in 1913. Unlike many Titanic researchers I reserve the right to refine my work over time and make corrections based on new information. In this case, I realize that percentages of fuel have no bearing on 1913 reality and must be discarded. It was not the percent in reserve that was critical, but the actual tonnage held back for contingencies.

I agree that coal needed to be kept in reserve for contingencies. As regards the percentages and actual figures (tons), I have been used the percentage figures in this debate since they were what you used in your own work; if you would prefer to use the actual figures in tons then I don't intend to complain. Indeed, I used the figures in tons in my own published work.

When you write that 'Unlike many Titanic researchers I reserve the right to refine my work over time and make corrections based on new information,' I think any serious researcher refines their work over time as their research continues, but you can only demand that standard of others if it is a standard that you are applying consistently to yourself, otherwise you invite accusations of hypocrisy.

The closest port suitable for sheltering an Olympic class vessel without navigational risk and with suitable coaling facilities was Halifax. No ship has "enough" fuel aboard if it cannot safely divert from its port of destination to a second port. For Titanic, that meant it had to be able to complete its New York run with enough fuel to get to Halifax. It would have taken Titanic about a day and a half to go from New York to Halifax. From an operational standpoint, this is two days. At 650 tons per day, that's a minimum of 1,300 tons required for a safe trip.

So, Mark's minimum 1,000 tons reserve was insufficient for the safety of the ship by 300 tons, or about a half-day's steaming. (In discussions of safety you always take the worst possible case. If, as Mark suggests, the ship burned less than 650 tons per day there would be no harm done...

Here is where your numerous problematic assumptions create difficulties for your argument. I did not suggest that 'the ship burned less than 650 tons per day'. My figures have been very specific and I gave them on a day-by-day basis. As regards diverting to Halifax, your own estimate of 650 tons per day is interesting, but it seems to assume Titanic would have been making her normal service speed. As you have indicated, the speed influences coal consumption. Using the cautious estimates, Titanic burned 116 percent more coal at 22 knots than she did at 16 knots; if we allow for a slower speed - not necessarily 16 knots - then there would be plenty of coal. In fact, Titanic burned less than a ton of coal per mile at 16 knots.

There are further problems in your analysis, in that I have already been extremely cautious in rounding my estimate down to 1,000 tons; if we allow for the less cautious estimate, which is more in keeping with Olympic's performance, then the reserve goes as high as 1,654 tons. Using your own assumptions, many of which are questionable, this is a fair bit higher than the 1,300 tons you have defined as a reserve.

Even this assumes your other assertions are correct. I don’t think they are. Titanic was some 450 miles from Halifax around the time of the collision (and I am only taking this figure for this discussion as it is the one you gave in your book): less than twenty-four hours’ steaming at only 19 knots. Your definition that Titanic ‘had to be able to complete its New York run with enough fuel to get to Halifax’ is debatable, given that as she got closer to New York there would become a point when New York would be nearer. (If Titanic was two hundred miles from New York, for example, then she would hardly divert to Halifax, which would be further away.) However, I will continue with your definition for now. And, since you have rounded ‘about a day and a half’ up to two days, as an illustration it can be left at 1.5 days, bringing your required reserve down from 1,300 tons to 975 tons.

It is a false assumption that Titanic needed enough coal in reserve to a) cover the entire distance from New York to Halifax at; b) her normal service speed. Whereas I have taken a cautious estimate and a ‘less cautious’ one, the former being disadvantageous to my argument, you have used debatable assumptions to make the required tonnage of coal in reserve higher, which – superficially, at least – bolsters your argument.

I've seen predictions of 850 tons/day at 23 knots which seem reasonable. If that were true, then Titanic's fuel load at Southampton was insufficient for a seven day voyage as 5,950 tons would have been required and there would have been no reserve for safety. At 24 knots, Titanic would have needed a tow about a day out of New York because it would have run out of coal to fire the boilers. As I stated in my book, the fuel simply was not aboard for a trans-Atlantic record setting run, even if Titanic could have been pushed to the required speed.

Your arguments in that regard have not been clear. That is not what you said before. What you said was:

Despite the ship's fuel savings on the first two days, Captain Smith was correct in his attempt to persuade Ismay against increasing speed beyond 22.25 knots for the remainder of the voyage. Their ship did not have enough fuel onboard for such publicity stunts.

It is one of history’s curious footnotes that, except for an unfortunate encounter with an iceberg, Titanic might have earned fame for a different ignominy. Ismay's plan would have depleted the ship's supply of coal before it arrived in New York Harbor, possibly leaving it a helpless, drifting hulk. If that had happened, the entry of the world's largest liner into New York would have been at the end of a salvage ship's towing hawser.

As we can see, you were very specific in stating that there was not enough coal available to increase speed beyond 22.25 knots for the remainder of the voyage. In fact, Titanic had already increased speed to at least 22.5 knots through the water by the time of the collision. If you are now saying that your past statement was incorrect, then I would agree with you and concur with that assessment.

We know that Titanic was incapable of setting a 'trans-Atlantic record' (if you mean by that the Blue Ribband), however the argument that George and - subsequently - other researchers have put forward is that the intention was to beat Olympic's maiden voyage time. At no point, that I recall, did you seek to address those issues or analyse the evidence for that.

My cautious estimates did, in fact, allow for coal consumption as high as 929 tons over a day’s run of 570 miles. In terms of maintaining full speed for the entire crossing, we have already seen that was not the case. While your arguments that there was not enough coal for Titanic to maintain full speed for the entire crossing are broadly correct as far as they go, the key point is that this is irrelevant; since, as you yourself acknowledge, she did not maintain full speed for the first few days. It is something of a strawman argument.

When you state that ‘the fuel simply was not aboard for a trans-Atlantic record setting run, even if Titanic could have been pushed to the required speed,’ you seem to be arguing that even *if* Titanic was ‘Blue Ribband’ material (she wasn’t); even *if* she had been driven at full speed for the entire crossing (she wasn’t); *then* the coal to do so would not be available (which is irrelevant).

But, using the tonnage numbers we do know, and reasonable assumptions about fuel burn, it appears Titanic did have enough fuel aboard for the intended voyage, and for reaching a suitable alternative port – but nothing more.

As we have seen, I think many of the assumptions in your analysis are questionable. Titanic had ample fuel for the crossing; she was capable of being driven at full speed from the time of the collision until she arrived in New York; and with a plentiful reserve.

Regards,

Mark.

[David G. Brown]

I have to thank Mark C. for promoting my book. He's doing a better job than my publisher. However, despite my gratitude, I still have to point out that he is twisting my words again as he has in the past on the issue of fuel management and Titanic's maiden voyage. Titanic did not have the coal for any sort of 22.5 knot or faster full crossing. I'll prove it with figures Mark has published.

We have no authentic fuel consumption numbers for Titanic. So, we have to use the fuel consumption numbers postulated by Mr. Sanderson for Olympic. I believe Mark has quoted these numbers in at least one book he has published. The following table is extrapolated from Sanderson:

19.00 Knots – 550 Tons/Day
20.00 " - 630 "
21.00 " - 710 "
21.50 " - 755 "
22.00 " - 800 "
22.50 " - 850 "

We also have to look at the total distance and compute the number of days for the passage. That will allow us to compute the tons of fuel needed. The distance to New York was about 3,200 miles.

19.00 Knots – 7.1 Days, 3,860 tons
20.00 " - 6.7 Days, 4,200 "
21.00 " - 6.4 Days, 4,507 "
21.50 " - 6.2 Days, 4,682 "
22.00 " - 6.1 Days, 4,484 "
22.50 " - 5.9 Days, 5,037 "

Titanic had 5,982 tons of coal certified in its bunkers at Southampton. However, it sailed with somewhat less. Titanic was burning fuel even while the paperwork was being finished to allow the ship to depart. How much did the ship actually have when it steamed out of Southampton? Unknowable.

The rule in these things is to err on the side of safety. Even so, let's accept the 5,982 tons at face value although we know the actual amount was a bit less. This gives the following table of the theoretical remainder at the same speed in the bunkers in New York. Also, we know that running at 22.5 knots on the cross-Channel legs would have been impracticable. However, this is an exercise in round numbers, not absolutes. For instance, the amount of heat from the coal loaded in Belfast may have been significantly different from the coal loaded at Southampton and that would have affected the tons/hour consumption. Then there is the insoluable mystery of how much coal was wasted in the bunker fire. So, suffice to say this argument has all of the accuracy needed in hand grenades and horseshoes. It's not possible to do better as we have no absolute numbers from Titanic on fuel burn.

19.00 Knots – 2,122 tons = 3.9 Days Remainder
20.00 " - 1,782 " = 2.8 Days "
21.00 " - 1,475 " = 2.1 Days "
21.50 " - 1,300 " = 1.7 Days "
22.00 " - 1,498 " = 1.9 Days "
22.50 " - 945 " = 1.1 Days "

At first blush it does appear the ship had "plenty" of coal to steam at a full 22.5 knots to New York. However, this simplistic table does not show the whole picture. Not all of the coal in the bunker was available to burn. And, of the coal that was available, a large amount had to be retained for domestic use (generating electricity, etc.) even if the ship had to stop its main engines for lack of fuel.

1. Bunker Bottoms – the space inside the bunker from the level of the stoker plates down to the tank top (about 2.5 feet) contained coal not available or intended for consumption during a voyage. It was there in part as sacrificial protection against bilge water and to provide vertical air circulation. Each bunker would have had at least 25 tons of unusable fuel, or about 250 total tons of "bunker bottoms."

2. Domestic Use – This is the fuel needed to keep the electric lights working, distribute water, etc. Sanderson estimated the house consumption at about 100 tons per day. At least two days supply of coal for this purpose, or 200 tons, would have to be kept in reserve to allow passengers to disembark before coaling could begin. (Imagine trying to get around those corridors in the dark, or by oil lantern light. Then, imagine that the flush toilets aren't working. Thank you for choosing White Star!)

The total of #1 & #2 above is 450 tons which must be deducted from the amount left upon arrival in New York. That means at 22.5 knots the actual reserve would have been roughl a half of one day's supply of fuel:

945 tons Remain – 450 tons = 495 tons useable at New York.

While in theory the ship could have made New York at 22.5 knots sustained speed, allowing the useable coal to drop to only 495 tons of coal at the end of such a voyage would have been imprudent if not negligent operation.

Dividing the theoretical 495 useable tons by the original 5,982 tons bunkered shows that only 8% of Titanic's original fuel would have been available after a 22.5 knot voyage. That is a very thin margin of safety. It is not unusual for weather to increase fuel expenditure by 10% or more. If that happened and Titanic encountered a major storm, then the 495 available tons would have been reduced by 590 tons. That spells trouble:

495 tons avail – 590 tons storm burn = -85 tons at N.Y. (How do you shovel "minus" coal into a bunker?)

This is why I raised the possibility of Titanic being towed to New York as the result of a high-speed run gone awry. Captain Smith was certainly aware of all this. In fact, he would have been concerned with withholding another 100 tons from the engines for every 200 miles the ship was offshore. That additional withholding would have been necessary to cover domestic needs during the time required for an 8-knot tow into New York if the fuel supply for the engines ran out.

What made possible the alleged "speed run" was the coal saved by steaming at a slower average speed during the early days of the voyage. Simple division of distance by time tells us that from Queenstown to the accident scene Titanic averaged only about 19.6 knots. At that rate, it burned nearly 240 tons less per day than at 22.5 knots -- quite a savings. In theory, this saved fuel would have allowed a sustained 21.25 knots to New York while maintaining a 2-day supply of available reserve coal (at 19 knots) upon arrival New York. At 22.5 knots, the available reserve would have been only 1.8 days -- barely sufficient for Titanic to reach an alternative coaling port suitable for a ship of its size. So, even with the savings from slower early speds, Captain Smith was still playing a bit fast and loose with his fuel management.

As for attaching importance to beating Olympic's maiden voyage speed -- why? There would have been nothing to gain in making Olympic seem a slowpoke now that Titanic was the fleet speed merchant. The importance of a faster passage would more likely have been to the engineers who may have tweaked or changed something to gain improved performance. If Titanic was either making, or about to make Ismay's "speed run," I suspect -- but do not know -- that it was a test of engineering changes and not some alleged publicity stunt.

One other issue. There is no credible historic evidence for a speed of more than 22 knots, and that speed comes only from Boxhall. All of the other officers gave lower speeds. To claim either 21.25 or 22.5 knots as Titanic's speed as fact is academic fraud and I make no claims of any such speeds here. My use of 22.5 knots was for illustrative purposes only. I have seen alleged "proofs" of higher speeds, but they all require on assumptions based on navigational data from other ships, the wrong duration of the run, and/or an assumed recreation of the ship's location at 7:30 p.m. stars. It is permissible to say – as I have both in public and privately to Mark – that Titanic's speed was probably greater than the 22 knots Boxhall admitted. However, it is totally false to assert any higher speed as a proven fact.

--David G. Brown

[Achmet Pamba]

Salaam, Dave.

>As for attaching importance to beating Olympic's maiden voyage speed -- why? There would have been nothing to gain in making Olympic seem >a slowpoke now that Titanic was the fleet speed merchant.

On the contrary. White Star would have had nothing to gain by giving the general public the impression that each of its new ships was slower than the last.

Achmet

[Mark Chirnside]

I still have to point out that he is twisting my words again as he has in the past on the issue of fuel management and Titanic's maiden voyage.

You continue to make the mistake of judging me by your own standards, David.

I do not twist words or distort what other people have said. It is your distortion that is evident for all to see: whereas I have quoted your words and reported them accurately, you have not even had the basic courtesy to provide an accurate summary of my arguments.

Titanic did not have the coal for any sort of 22.5 knot or faster full crossing [my emphasis]. I'll prove it with figures Mark has published.

Here is your first major problem: I have NOT argued that she did have enough coal to maintain 22.5 knots for the full crossing. What I HAVE argued is that Titanic had enough fuel to maintain full speed from the disaster site to New York and retain plenty of fuel in reserve. You appear to have spent a great deal of effort attempting to refute an argument which I never made in the first place.

We have no authentic fuel consumption numbers for Titanic. So, we have to use the fuel consumption numbers postulated by Mr. Sanderson for Olympic. I believe Mark has quoted these numbers in at least one book he has published.

I have used both Sanderson's figures (which were given in 1915) and figures for Olympic's actual consumption in service, so we do not have to use Sanderson's figures exclusively. We have to take into account ALL the evidence. You only state that you 'believe' I have quoted these numbers 'in at least one book'. Now then, if you are not even certain what I have published and where I have published it then how can you address my arguments?

The tables you have presented probably appear very convincing to the casual reader. However, I presented my results as tables in my published work, taking into account the different speeds at each stage of the voyage. There is no reason for me to revise them given the fundamental defects in your methodology and approach; a methodology whereby you rely on Sanderson’s higher consumption estimates ONLY, and use a figure of 22.5 knots for the ENTIRE crossing.

Simple division of distance by time tells us that from Queenstown to the accident scene Titanic averaged only about 19.6 knots.

Unfortunately, you have not done your 'simple division' correctly, David. In fact, Titanic averaged a little over 21.3 knots between leaving Daunt's Rock after she had stopped at Queenstown and noon on April 14th 1912. By the time she collided with the iceberg the average speed had risen further. The flaws in your theories about an alternative coaling port remain and you have not addressed them. In fact, if your claims were accurate then Olympic would never have completed her maiden voyage.

As for attaching importance to beating Olympic's maiden voyage speed -- why? There would have been nothing to gain in making Olympic seem a slowpoke now that Titanic was the fleet speed merchant. The importance of a faster passage would more likely have been to the engineers who may have tweaked or changed something to gain improved performance. If Titanic was either making, or about to make Ismay's "speed run," I suspect -- but do not know -- that it was a test of engineering changes and not some alleged publicity stunt.

I am concerned only with the historical evidence and what it shows us, not with speculation. For those who are interested in this topic, they could do worse than read the following: George Behe's book, 'Titanic: Safety, Speed & Sacrifice;' J Kent Layton's article, 'The Arrival that Never Took Place,' published in TI's Voyage, Issues 54 & 55 (2005) and the article Sam Halpern and I co-authored, published in the THS's Titanic Commutator, Issues 182 & 183 (2008). These works addressed the issues at length.

One other issue. There is no credible historic evidence for a speed of more than 22 knots, and that speed comes only from Boxhall. All of the other officers gave lower speeds. To claim either 21.25 or 22.5 knots as Titanic's speed as fact is academic fraud and I make no claims of any such speeds here. My use of 22.5 knots was for illustrative purposes only. I have seen alleged "proofs" of higher speeds, but they all require on assumptions based on navigational data from other ships, the wrong duration of the run, and/or an assumed recreation of the ship's location at 7:30 p.m. stars. It is permissible to say – as I have both in public and privately to Mark – that Titanic's speed was probably greater than the 22 knots Boxhall admitted. However, it is totally false to assert any higher speed as a proven fact.

You state 'there is no credible historic evidence for a speed of more than 22 knots’. An examination of ALL the available evidence demonstrates otherwise. We know that Titanic ran 546 miles between noon on April 13th and noon on April 14th (24 hours 45 minutes) which works out at an average speed of 22.06 knots over the ground. There is no evidence that the ship’s speed through the water slowed after that. In fact, the evidence we do have – which Sam and I examined at length in our article for the THS (Titanic Historical Society) – shows the opposite. As you are fully aware, it was reported that the ship made 45 knots through the water between 8 and 10 p.m. on her final night, April 14th 1912, which works out at an average speed of 22.5 knots through the water. We have supporting evidence of additional boilers being brought online, higher boiler pressure being carried, higher engine revolutions and increased vibrations noticed by several people on the Sunday night.

Credible evidence about speed comes from our knowledge of distance and time. We know the distance traveled by Titanic since noon on April 14th and the time of the accident, and we know the time from noon to the accident; those numbers show Titanic did even better than the 22.1 knots (in round figures) of the previous day’s run.

Regards,

Mark.

[samhalpern]

Interesting discussion regarding coal consumption and how much reserve should remain on board at the completion of a voyage. I think there are many assumptions being made about what an adequate reserve must be. It was suggested that the ship should be able to reach NY and have enough coal on board to also go on to reach Halifax. First of all, a ship is not an airplane. An airplane must have enough fuel on board to reach its planned destination and also go on to safely reach an alternate airport should it be diverted from landing at the planned field. Planes cannot just hang around in the sky waiting for a weather situation to clear over the intended destination. But why would a ship have to divert to Halifax if it already reached close to its NY destination? There were other ports much closer by it could go to (e.g., Boston) and anchor in the harbor if need be.

All that aside, IMM rule book, Rule 416, says that the chief engineer must report to the commander every day soon after noon the estimated quantity of coal consumed since noon the previous day, the miles run by revolution, the quantity of coal remaining, and the number of miles this quantity will allow assuming the same rate of consumption over that noon-to-noon period. He must also satisfy himself that there will be safe margin of coal remaining after the completion of the voyage. Those rules do not specify what a safe margin must be. But looking at what must be reported every day to the commander, it appears that they must have enough coal remaining to cover the remaining miles at the same rate of consumption and engine revolutions that they were just averaging, plus have some safe margin remaining after completing those remaining miles at that comsumption rate. A safe margine appears be in terms of days of spare consumption at the measured rate, not in terms of reaching some particular alternate port. Ismay testified that Titanic had 'sufficient coal to enable her to reach New York, with about two days spare consumption.'

Taking into account what we know about how her speed was managed up to the time of the accident, it appears that Ismay was correct in that statement. Talking about an Atlantic crossing at 22.5 knots from Queenstown to NY is irrelavent. Up to the time of the accident, Titanic had averaged 21.44 knots over ground, covering a distance of 1807 nautical miles in 3 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes. If she maintained that speed or greater for the remaining 1084 miles, she would have beat the maiden voyage performance of her sister ship Olympic. Maintaining an average speed of 21.6 knots or greater for the remaining 1084 miles, she would have reached the Ambrose lightship before midnight Tuesday. At the speed she was actually making late Sunday night, somewhat over 22 knots, Titanic was well on her way to setting the best maiden voyage crossing performance for a White Star Line ship except that an iceberg had other ideas.

[Gordon Simpson]

Here we have a discussion by well informed individuals who are looking at the same question from different angles. How do we define, " Ample reserve."
In the Business World I have as the one who has risked my home, my savings, my families future on creating various enterprise, some succeeded some failed, and all the failures were due to one of two things. (a) What If . and (b) I did'nt think of that.
Our present world financial problems are due entirely to these facts. Consequently I turn over the stone, and members may have noted perhaps in disagreement that I investigate the improbable.
So I would approach this "Reserve" question from a third dimension. The unkown factor which have not been disclosed.
If the bunker was on fire then it was burning coal. How much. Robert Essenhigh, Mech/Eng Ohio state University has done a thesis on this and states and quotes 1 inch per hour. The bunker was loaded with 380 tons, measured 90 ft X 7ft X 25 ft dropping the 25ft by 1 inch P/H for 6 days = 12 ft which is more than half the available 22ft bunker. ( 3ft bilge bunker)
Also it is stated that extra men were involved clearing the bunker as quickly as possible so where as this was used , it was a forced use and therefor would involve waste.
Also as the bunkers were some 3 ft below stokehold where the only way to recover was by rake and bucket 10 times longer time than shovel, then an 850 tons requirement would become a 85 ton available. It would not be intended to use this 500 tons in eleven bilge store bunkers. Things just aint as they seem. GORDON

[titanic_crazed09]

First of all, the officers didn't stop the ship cause they weren't familiar with the ship. Secondly, i think the officers were wanting to break records for the Titanic to get into New York by Tuesday. Course it could be anything, but that's my theory.

[Ruark]

First, neither of these guys were really familiar with icebergs. One of them - which one? - had never even seen one before. So there's a natural tendency to poo-poo such dangers as one has only read or heard about. Icebergs? Uh, yeah, icebergs, those big pieces of ice that float around. Yeah I heard about them things.... This might have been a factor.

Second, slowing down might have made it worse, depending on which way the iceberg was drifting. If it were drifting across the ship's bow, a slower speed would have allowed it to move more in front of the ship, perhaps with more... or less... effect at impact. On the other hand, they may have missed it completely, or struck a different one.

There are a number of variables in this picture. In any case, slowing down would certainly have made sense.

Ruark

[Ruark]

First, neither of these guys were really familiar with icebergs.
Ruark

Sorry to be quoting my own post here, but I read this yesterday somewhere on this forum. If I'm in error, I apologize and beg to be corrected.

Thanks,
Ruark

[Ruark]

Sorry again... here is what I read:

"There are hints in the evidence that the officers and crew had little experience with ice. Herbert Pitman, for instance, had never seen a berg at night. Frederick Fleet, when a lookout on Oceanic, had never seen one at all. "

It doesn't refer to Lightoller or Murdoch. Again, I apologize. How the **** do you edit or delete a post on this thing????

Ruark

[MAB]

How the **** do you edit or delete a post on this thing????

There's an "Edit" button at the upper right corner of each of your messages, and the red X next to it is "Delete," Ruark.

[Ruark]

I don't see any Red X, etc. on my posts.....

Ruark

[old salty]

Hi Megan,

The reason to slow down, (from at which point they had already sped up) was the ice warnings. Smith knew they were headed fro an icefield, but sped up instead.

As has been alluded to earlier in this forum, it was felt by Titanic's officers that any danger would be seen in time for the ship to take evasive action. This mentality was consistent with accepted navigational practices of the time. Every ship did it.

The ships only slowed down when the amount of ice they encountered started to cause concerns. Dave Gittins is the best one for the stats on this, but there were a number of ships in the general area that had stopped for the night because of ice.

The first real contact that Titanic had with ice was the collision itself. It never reached the ice field, it was unlucky enough to encounter an isolated berg on the fringes of that field.

The way you have put it, it seems (to me, anyway) as though Smith recklessly sped up even though he was obviously heading into danger. A lot of submissions to the inquiries, seeking to blame him, couched it in much the same way. Senator Smith's oratory also villified him. However, given that he was just following standard operating procedures, I think that's a bit harsh.

It was the Titanic disaster that proved definitively how potentially dangerous these practices were. Your stating that the reason to slow down was the ice warnings has the benefit of hindsight that this disaster afforded everyone after the fact. Smith didn't have that hindsight.

I like the approach of the British inquiry, which effectively stated that Captain Smith had made, in hindsight, a very grievious error, but that while his actions were considered understandable in light of hitherto current practice, the same actions should be considered negligent from here on in.

I would consider the same applies to all of Titanic's officers including Lightoller and Murdoch.

Cheers!

Karl

Karl as proberbly the most experienced captain in the white star fleet, dont think for one minute captain smith would have also either reduced speed or in fact stopped until daylight

[Gordon Simpson]

Hi Raurk,
You make a ref to that the officers had not seen icebergs previously. As I, as are many other members keeping a file on events, I would be grateful if you could supply any source for this information.

Hi Crazed09
You refer to that Titanic was attempting some record and intended to arrive on tuesday.
The tuesday arrival has been denied by both Bruce Ismay, and Harold Saunders, testified in the BWCI.
No provision was made for the ship to be received by The New York Harbour Authority, ie tugs, customs, stevadores, and other, before 7 am wednesday morning.
Ref attempting records. Max speed of The Olympic Class was some 23 knots.Some 6 knots slower than the fastest ships of that time.
Regards Gordon.

[Achmet Pamba]

Salaam, Gordon.

>The tuesday arrival has been denied by both Bruce Ismay, and Harold Saunders, testified in the BWCI.

Both men were in the minority in their denials (and nobody named "Harold Saunders" testified at either inqujiry.) In fact, Ismay lied when he denied knowing that additional boilers were to be connected to the Titanic's engines on April 14th. Titanic was trying to better the maiden voyage crossing time of the Olympic, and she would have had to slow down in order not to arrive at the Ambrose light on Tuesday night.

>No provision was made for the ship to be received by The New York Harbour Authority, ie tugs, customs, stevadores, and other, before 7 am wednesday morning.

If that's true, how do you explain the Olympic's arrival in New York on Tuesday night on July 13, 1911?

See George Behe's "Titanic: Safety, Speed and Sacrifice" and Mark Chirnside's outstanding books on the Olympic-class ships for detailed presentations of the evidence which demonstrates conclusively that the Titanic was indeed expected to arrive in New York on Tuesday night.

Achmet

[Gordon Simpson]

Salaam, Achmet.
I thank you for correcting my misspelling of the name of a witness. I wrote "Harold Saunders" which was intended to mean "Harold Sanderson". It appears that we can all make spelling mistakes as shown by yourself when you spelled a word as "inqujiry"
in the same sentence used to correct mine.

Your comment

>> Both men were in the minority in their denials <<

Would you give the rank and official position of the " majority ".
The " Both men" I refer to are (a) The Managing Director of the Holding Company, International Mercantile Marine, and (b) The Vice President of the same Company. How high up the ladder of executive control does it require ?

You further ask,

>> How do you explain the Olympic's arrival in New York, on Tuesday night on July 13 1911.<<

May I remind you that I am commenting on the Titanic, and not the Olympic.
However the explanation is that arrangements had been prepared for the Olympic to make an early arrival and in July it is daylight for an approach in the complicated seven course alteration required to enter the harbour approach which a ship of 34 feet draft is required to make.

You state that Mark Chirnsides oustanding book on Olympic Class Ships, demonstrates conclusively that the Titanic was indeed expected to arrive in New York, on Tuesday night. I have this book and fail to find this statement . Would you be good enough to inform me as this is an important statement. Regards Gordon.

[Achmet Pamba]

Salaam, Gordon.

>The " Both men" I refer to are (a) The Managing Director of the Holding Company, >International Mercantile Marine, and (b) The Vice President of the same Company. How >high up the ladder of executive control does it require ?

According to Archibald Gracie, Captain Smith himself was telling passengers that the Titanic would be making a Tuesday night arrival. Knowledge of that planned early arrival was not exactly a secret among the Titanic's passengers.

>However the explanation is that arrangements had been prepared for the Olympic to >make an early arrival ...

Just out of curiosity, where did you find the documentation for your claim that that preparations were made for the Olympic's early arrival but not for the Titanic's?

>You state that Mark Chirnsides oustanding book on Olympic Class Ships, demonstrates >conclusively that the Titanic was indeed expected to arrive in New York, on Tuesday >night. I have this book and fail to find this statement . Would you be good enough to >inform me as this is an important statement.

Please forgive me for mentioning Mark's writings on this subject. I've contacted Mark privately and will allow him to talk with you himself about the Tuesday night arrival if he wishes to do so. In the meantime, I'll just re-recommend George Behe's book to you for information about the Tuesday night arrival and for Ismay's blatant dishonesty in claiming not to know that additional boilers were to be connected to the Titanic's engines on Sunday night.

Achmet

[Karl Texler]

Hi Old Salty,

Karl as proberbly the most experienced captain in the white star fleet, dont think for one minute captain smith would have also either reduced speed or in fact stopped until daylight

I'm not exactly sure of your posting here. At first glance, it appears that what you are saying is consistent with my basic point that Captain Smith was following standard practices. If that's not what you mean, please let me know!

Cheers!

Karl

[Mark Chirnside]

Thanks for alerting me to this discussion, Achmet. I don’t have the time I would like to follow all the forums, and I might have missed it entirely otherwise.

George Behe’s monograph contains a great deal of his original research and is a really comprehensive look at the evidence. It was the first publication to make much of the relevant evidence available, analysing it in an objective fashion and presenting all the material to the reader so that they could make up their own mind. I appreciate your kind words about my work, but as my own book was an attempt to write a reasonably detailed history covering the histories of all three ships, inevitably I was unable to furnish as much detail as I would have liked. Nevertheless, I think there is a fair summary of the issue of Titanic’s arrival time and I may have the chance to expand further upon that in future, but I would also recommend a look at J Kent Layton's fine article, 'The Arrival that Never Took Place,' published in Titanic International Society's Voyage, Issues 54 & 55 (2005) and the article Sam Halpern and I co-authored, published in the Titanic Historical Society's Titanic Commutator, Issues 182 & 183 (2008).

If I may address the subject in brief, Gordon:

>> [Achmet]:How do you explain the Olympic's arrival in New York, on Tuesday night on July 13 1911.<<

May I remind you that I am commenting on the Titanic, and not the Olympic.
However the explanation is that arrangements had been prepared for the Olympic to make an early arrival and in July it is daylight

It is known that Olympic arrived in New York on a number of occasions on Tuesday evening, in 1911 and 1912, whether it was summer or winter. The time of year was hardly a limiting factor in that regard. There seems no reason why Titanic would have been different. (By ‘arrival,’ my remarks refer to when she reached the Ambrose Lightship; I am not talking about when she docked. This is an important distinction, as you will appreciate.)

Best wishes,

Mark.

[old salty]

Firstly karl i was actually agreeing with you on your point sorry for any confusion.Secondly WHERES MAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. GOOD GRIEF, The spelling mistakes on this post alone, he will read them now because he reads all my posts for spelling mistakes.As i say isn't that why they put rubbers on the end of pencils???????????. come on MAB!!!!!!! Lets get a few knuckles rapped i have spotted a lot more spelling mistakes here than most? or maybe you don't want to spot them, very Regards all once again karl a simple error, i cant edit your post twice sorry for any confusion Salty.

[Shamrock Sailor]

Internet beef; It's what keeps this country so street.

[old salty]

Salaam, Gordon.

>The tuesday arrival has been denied by both Bruce Ismay, and Harold Saunders, testified in the BWCI.

Both men were in the minority in their denials (and nobody named "Harold Saunders" testified at either inqujiry.) In fact, Ismay lied when he denied knowing that additional boilers were to be connected to the Titanic's engines on April 14th. Titanic was trying to better the maiden voyage crossing time of the Olympic, and she would have had to slow down in order not to arrive at the Ambrose light on Tuesday night.

>No provision was made for the ship to be received by The New York Harbour Authority, ie tugs, customs, stevadores, and other, before 7 am wednesday morning.

If that's true, how do you explain the Olympic's arrival in New York on Tuesday night on July 13, 1911?

See George Behe's "Titanic: Safety, Speed and Sacrifice" and Mark Chirnside's outstanding books on the Olympic-class ships for detailed presentations of the evidence which demonstrates conclusively that the Titanic was indeed expected to arrive in New York on Tuesday night.

Achmet

inquijiry ? You see how easy it is to make a mistake by all of the members? i personally forgive you because common sence tells me you meant to write inquiry Regards Salty.

[Karl Texler]

Hi Old Salty,

Firstly karl i was actually agreeing with you on your point sorry for any confusion.Secondly WHERES MAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. GOOD GRIEF, The spelling mistakes on this post alone, he will read them now because he reads all my posts for spelling mistakes.As i say isn't that why they put rubbers on the end of pencils???????????. come on MAB!!!!!!! Lets get a few knuckles rapped i have spotted a lot more spelling mistakes here than most? or maybe you don't want to spot them, very Regards all once again karl a simple error, i cant edit your post twice sorry for any confusion Salty.

No apologies necessary - I was just making sure.

As regards Mark (MAB) - I find him a very fair and conscientious moderator of this forum. I've seen many other forums that were run far worse, and became very unpleasant to participate in.

Yes, you two seem to have had disagreements, but disagreement does not necessarily equate to personally directed (and personally inferred) criticism. Disagreement is part and parcel of healthy forum debate and should remain in that context. Too many times people on forums take things personally, then everything escalates.

Let's not play the man, let's play the ball (and the ball happens to be Titanic).

Cheers!

Karl

[old salty]

Karl i also have been on forums and experienced the hate that can creep in. i am all for the ball you mention lifes to short and people shouldn't forget that when they get into ridiculous arguments. Best wishes always whether in agreement or not, Its good we can agree to disagree. Its called democracy we all have a point of view that differs from time to time, Idont have a problem with you, Mab, or anyone else on this site otherwise i wouldnt waste my time here. Regards Salty.

[Gordon Simpson]

Salaam, Achmet
For evidence to support my question to give source of the majority, you state that Col A. Grace wrote in his book, that Capt Smith spoke to the passengers of a Tuesday night arrival.
(a) Capt Smith is one and Ismay and Sanderson are two. One is not the majority.
(b) Col Grace wrote this in a book. It was not testimonial evidence given under oath, and not subject to cross examination.
(c) Unfortunately I have been strongly criticized, during my debate regarding " The Bunker Fire", by having been told in a most strong manner by a number of knowledgeable members and Moderators, that I cannot use a statement made in testimony under oath within the Official Inquiry , that has been said to the person giving evidence. This I am informed is " Hearsay" and cannot be used to establish a circumstance. In my case, I spoke of a person who by making the statement did himself no benefit, the message he gave was recorded within an official document, and another person was at hand to confirm the statement.
So unfortunately Achmet, if I have been shouted down in my stronger case, then I can only presume that you would suffer the same response as that delivered to me.

You say that there is evidence which demonstrates conclusively that the Titanic was indeed expected to arrive in New York on Tuesday night. By arrive in New York, you are meaning within the port. to be alongside, and " made fast". Or do you not mean New York ?
Where you have questioned my statement, that arrangements would be made to arrive.
Any passenger ship or other entering a Port Authority controlled area, must inform and obtain permission from the Harbour Master, who's duty it is to ensure the safety of his Port re emergency tugs, pilot, and linesmen along the quay. It is not required to explain. It is Marine Law. It was when I was in the RNSVR, I dont think that it has changed. Regards GORDON.

[Achmet Pamba]

Salaam, Gordon.

>(a) Capt Smith is one and Ismay and Sanderson are two. One is not the majority.

(b) The purser told Lawrence Beesley that it had been intended for the Titanic to arrive in New York on Tuesday night.
(c) Bruce Ismay told Captain Smith that "we will beat the Olympic and get into New York on Tuesday."
(d) Bruce Ismay spoke with Mrs. Ryerson and left her with the impression that the Titanic would arrive in New York very late on Tuesday night or early on Wednesday morning.

Including Captain Smith, that's four people (which puts Ismay and Sanderson in the minority.)

>(b) Col Grace wrote this in a book. It was not testimonial evidence given under oath, and not subject to cross examination.

Being under oath didn't stop Bruce Ismay from lying about his prior knowledge of the connecting of the Titanic's last three main boilers, so I don't regard Gracie's "book claim" as being a particular handicap to Gracie's own reliability.

>So unfortunately Achmet, if I have been shouted down in my stronger case, then I can only presume that you would suffer the same response as that delivered to me.

Possibly - although I don't know that your prior case was indeed stronger than mine.

>You say that there is evidence which demonstrates conclusively that the Titanic was indeed expected to arrive in New York on Tuesday night. By arrive in New York, you >are meaning within the port. to be alongside, and " made fast". Or do you not mean New York ?

I mean arriving at the Ambrose lightship, which always marked the official record-keeping end point of a White Star voyage to New York.

>Where you have questioned my statement, that arrangements would be made to arrive.
>Any passenger ship or other entering a Port Authority controlled area, must inform and obtain permission from the Harbour Master, who's duty it is to ensure the safety >of his Port re emergency tugs, pilot, and linesmen along the quay. It is not required to explain. It is Marine Law. It was when I was in the RNSVR, I dont think that it has >changed.

Yes, but you've claimed that no preparations were made for the Titanic's Tuesday night arrival. I'm asking you to document that statement by providing us with an official source that details why no such preparations were made for the Titanic. (Mark has already pointed out that the Olympic arrived in New York on Tuesday night in both summer and winter, so your claim about lack of preparations in the Titanic's case needs to be verified and documented before we can take it at face value.)

Achmet

[MAB]

I don't see any Red X, etc. on my posts.....

Do you see the "Edit" button? The "X" is next to it...a little square that turns red when you move your cursor over it.

Hi Old Salty,

Karl as proberbly the most experienced captain in the white star fleet, dont think for one minute captain smith would have also either reduced speed or in fact stopped until daylight

I'm not exactly sure of your posting here.

Nor was I until I read old salty's response.

he will read them now because he reads all my posts for spelling mistakes.

You know full well this isn't true. I commented on one post in another thread where your misspelling made a difference in the meaning of your message; I have not commented on spelling or grammar errors in any of your other messages. Although everyone posting to the board is well-advised to use its spellchecker, spelling inaccuracies are not commented on unless the meaning of a message is unclear or confusing as a result.

I thank you for correcting my misspelling of the name of a witness. I wrote "Harold Saunders" which was intended to mean "Harold Sanderson". It appears that we can all make spelling mistakes as shown by yourself when you spelled a word as "inqujiry"

Here again, using "Saunders" instead of "Sanderson" changes the correctness of what was written. Misspelling "inquiry" doesn't.

As regards Mark (MAB) - I find him a very fair and conscientious moderator of this forum.

Thanks for the kind words, Karl. Much appreciated.

disagreement does not necessarily equate to personally directed (and personally inferred) criticism

Absolutely correct.

Idont have a problem with you, Mab, or anyone else on this site

Glad to hear that, old salty. Same here

>....By arrive in New York, you >are meaning within the port. to be alongside, and " made fast". Or do you not mean New York ?

I mean arriving at the Ambrose lightship, which always marked the official record-keeping end point of a White Star voyage to New York.

We've had a fairly recent discussion of the Tuesday arrival issue on this board, including whether in this context "arrive" means "dock."

[Gordon Simpson]

Salaam Achmet,

We appear to have different understanding of the expression.

" To arrive in New york."

My understanding is that the Ambrose Lightship, is not in New york, nor is it in the State of New york. It is outside the US territorial limits ( 1912) off the coast of the State of New Jersey.
I have taken your statement, " To arrive in New york" to be exactly that.
Upon passing the Ambrose lightship, a ship of 34 feet draft has a difficult passage past Sandy Hook, requiring a " Fix Position" to navigate a number of alterations of course to clear the Romer Shoal, the West Bank ,and enter the Varriazano Narrows. Before entering the New york Port Authority.
This complicated passage must ( I will no doubt be informed by a knowledgeable member ) require a pilot, and be made at a controlled speed possibly in darkness.
Although it is recorded that the Olympic, did arrive Ambrose lightship, on Tuesday night, then how long to get alongside , at the pier. Would the passengers not have disembarked till Wednesday morning, when the porters, customs officials and general dockland activity commenced.
I have found no reference to the Olympics movements after the Ambrose Lightship position.

Reference the comments of the authors, Lawrence Beesley, and Col Archibald Gracie,
I do not consider that a person writing a book, after having access to the Official Inquiry which must influence opinion, to have the same reliability of testimony given soon after an event, under oath, subject to cross examination and at a time when memory is fresh. However we are of different opinion.
Lawrence Beesley refers in his book, that the Purser, informed him of the fire in the coal bunker. It was stated in testimony that the engine crew were not to disclose this event to any other persons. The Engine crew were in separate accommodation, and not in contact with domestic staff. Capt Smith would no doubt ensure that the Purser was the last person to know of a problem in the engine room. Mr Beesley had access to the Inquiry Report.

The purpose of our being members of this Forum is to discuss and gain information.
My questions are to gain this knowledge and of no other intention.

Can anyone explain any advantage, other than prestige, in arriving Ambrose lightship, having consumed more coal, in darkness, unable to fully use the Port's services and Immigration Officers, but to waste some hours waiting for no purpose. Do it once to prove that it could be achieved, I can understand, but to continue when the Directors of the company state that it was a written order by the company that it was not a practice to be undertaken, is the event which interests me.
I thank all who provide valid information. GORDON

[Gordon Simpson]

I failed to correct. Please read New York. GORDON

[Achmet Pamba]

Salaam, Gordon.

>We appear to have different understanding of the expression.

>" To arrive in New york."

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was always referring to the "official" end of a White Star voyage - i. e. the time when the ship passed the Ambrose light.

> Would the passengers not have disembarked till Wednesday morning, when the porters, customs officials and general dockland activity commenced.

I believe Mark Chirnside possesses information which makes it clear that the passengers were free to either disembark or remain on the ship until morning, whichever they preferred to do.

>Reference the comments of the authors, Lawrence Beesley, and Col Archibald Gracie,
>I do not consider that a person writing a book, after having access to the Official Inquiry which must influence opinion, to have the same reliability of testimony given soon after an event, under oath, subject to cross examination and at a time when memory is fresh. However we are of different opinion.

Yes, we are.

>Lawrence Beesley refers in his book, that the Purser, informed him of the fire in the coal bunker. It was stated in testimony that the engine crew were not to disclose >this event to any other persons.

IMO expecting every single one of the 900+ crewmen not to exchange a little shipboard gossip is completely unrealistic. Human beings simply don't behave like that.

>My questions are to gain this knowledge and of no other intention.

I understand. Most of us are here for the very same reason.

>Can anyone explain any advantage, other than prestige, in arriving Ambrose lightship, having consumed more coal, in darkness, unable to fully use the Port's services >and Immigration Officers, but to waste some hours waiting for no purpose. Do it once to prove that it could be achieved, I can understand, but to continue when the >Directors of the company state that it was a written order by the company that it was not a practice to be undertaken, is the event which interests me.

It is indeed a curious situation, but the Olympic arrival data that George and Mark have assembled prove pretty conclusively that early arrivals were achieved regularly despite what Sanderson said.

I hope you'll have a great day, Gordon.

Achmet

[Gordon Simpson]

Salaam Achmet,

I also apologies for my part of the misunderstanding.

Regards GORDON.

[MAB]

Salaam Achmet,

We appear to have different understanding of the expression.

" To arrive in New york."

Contemporary sources reflect the same differences in the use of the term "arrive." The news columns of, for example, The New York Times, almost invariably use "arrive" to mean "dock" but the shipping column often notes the arrival at Ambrose (or, sometimes, at the Bar) in reporting ship movements, especially for late arrivals when the ship didn't actually dock that night but remained at anchor until morning. The Ellis Island ship manifests also often have a date on them that's a day earlier than the ship's actual arrival at the pier, reflecting, as far as I can tell, when the manifest was presented to the immigration and quarantine officials.

And, again, we've been through this before, in the earlier thread that I linked to in my last message.

[Gordon Simpson]

In future I shall say:-

To Ambrose Lightship.

Regards GORDON.

[Ruark]

I don't see any Red X, etc. on my posts.....

Do you see the "Edit" button? The "X" is next to it...a little square that turns red when you move your cursor over it.

I apologize for this being off topic, but no, there is no "edit" button on my posts. Perhaps I have some restricted status, being a new user?

Thanks,
Ruark

[MAB]

Actually, Ruark, I've now learned that the "Edit" function has been disabled so the buttons I mentioned no longer appear. Sorry for the confusion.