_Water-tight decks._--It is in evidence that advantage might be obtained
from the point of view of greater safety in having a water-tight deck.
Without entering into the general question of the advantage of
water-tight decks for all ships, it is desirable to form an opinion in
the case of the _Titanic_ as to whether making the bulkhead deck
water-tight would have been an advantage in the circumstances of the
accident, or in case of accident to ships of this class.
I am advised that it is found that with all the compartments certainly
known to have been flooded, viz., those forward of No. 4 boiler room,
the ship would have remained afloat if the bulkhead deck had been a
water-tight deck. If, however, No. 4 boiler room had also been flooded
the ship would not have remained afloat unless, in addition to making
the bulkhead deck water-tight, the transverse bulkhead abaft of No. 4
boiler room had been carried up to D deck.
To make the bulkhead deck effectively water-tight for this purpose it
would have been necessary to carry water-tight trunks round all the
openings in the bulkhead deck up to C deck.
It has been shown that with the bulkhead abaft No. 5 boiler room carried
to C deck the ship would have remained afloat if the compartments
certainly known to have been damaged had been flooded.
I do not desire to express an opinion upon the question whether it would
have conduced to safety in the case of the _Titanic_ if a water-tight
deck had been fitted below the water line, as there may be some
objections to such a deck. There are many considerations involved, and I
think that the matter should be dealt with by the bulkhead committee for
ships in general.
_Longitudinal subdivision._--The advantages and disadvantages of
longitudinal subdivision by means of water-tight bunker bulkheads were
pointed out in evidence.
While not attempting to deal with this question generally for ships, I
am advised that if the _Titanic_ had been divided in the longitudinal
method, instead of in the transverse method only, she would have been
able, if damaged as supposed, to remain afloat, though with a list which
could have been corrected by putting water ballast into suitable places.
This subject is one, however, which again involves many considerations,
and I think that for ships generally the matter should be referred to
the bulkhead committee for their consideration and report.
_Extending double bottom up the sides._--It was shown in evidence that
there would be increased protection in carrying the double bottom higher
up the side than was done in the _Titanic_, and that some of the boiler
rooms would probably not then have been flooded, as water could not have
entered the ship except in the double bottom.
In the case of the _Titanic_ I am advised that this would have been an
advantage, but it was pointed out in evidence that there are certain
disadvantages which in some ships may outweigh the advantages.
In view of what has already been said about the possible advantages of
longitudinal subdivision, it is unnecessary further to discuss the
question of carrying up the double bottom in ships generally. This
matter should also be dealt with by the bulkhead committee.
_Water-tight doors._--With reference to the question of the water-tight
doors of the ship, there does not appear to have been any appreciable
effect upon the sinking of the ship caused by either shutting or not
shutting the doors. There does not appear to have been any difficulty in
working the water-tight doors. They appear to have been shut in good
time after the collision.
But in other cases of damage in ships constructed like the _Titanic_, it
is probable that the efficiency of the closing arrangement of the
water-tight doors may exert a vital influence on the safety of the ship.
It has been represented that in future consideration should be given to
the question--
as to how far bulkhead should be solid bulkheads, and how far there
should be water-tight doors, and, if there should be water-tight
doors, how far they may or may not be automatically operated.
This again is a question on which it is not necessary here to express
any general opinion, for there are conflicting considerations which vary
in individual cases. The matter, however, should come under the
effective supervision of the board of trade much more than it seems to
come at present, and should be referred to the bulkhead committee for
their consideration with a view to their suggesting in detail where
doors should or should not be allowed, and the type of door which should
be adopted in the different parts of ships.
[Illustration: S.S. "TITANIC."
NOTE.--The vertical letters signify the different decks. The
horizontal letters signify the water-tight bulkheads. The heavy
line shows the top of the water-tight bulkheads. The crosshatched
compartments are those opened to the sea at the time of the
collision with the iceberg.]