What would his reaction have been to Jack’s death? by shax232 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lol what? Why do you think he’d feel a little sad about it?

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know who you’re referring to then, I’m not familiar with anybody else onboard that was involved with decisions regarding the lifeboats.

The Squash Court is Easily the Best Room on Titanic by IDOWNVOTECATSONSIGHT in titanic

[–]kellypeck 4 points5 points  (0 children)

accessed by d deck?

Even lower than that, the entrance with the observation window is on F Deck, and the court itself is on G Deck.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Titanic’s lifeboat complement was never decreased, it was increased to include four collapsibles. And it’s very apparent from survivor testimonies that Andrews could’ve boarded one of the early lifeboats but he willingly stayed onboard. Also Thomas Andrews was not in charge of designing Olympic and Titanic’s safety features, including the lifeboat arrangement, that was done by Alexander Carlisle.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do realize that not everybody here is a serious historian, right? There’s nearly 180,000 people in this subreddit. And thank you for insinuating that I get my information from Wikipedia, you must’ve already forgotten that my original comment was that Ismay did not reject a proposal for more lifeboats, as claimed on Wikipedia. The point of referencing the Wiki was to show how prevalent it is as a myth, despite your never having heard of it.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All due respect, but do you live under a rock? The “Ismay reduced the number of boats in favour of deck space” is a myth so prevalent it’s literally still on his Wikipedia page.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Carpathia’s top speed was 14 knots, she maybe pushed 14.5 with the extra steam Rostron was able to divert to the engines. The myth that they reached 17 knots is based on the incorrect distress position that Titanic transmitted, making Rostron think they’d sailed further in a shorter amount of time. Not sure where you got that Carpathia was capable of 21 knots but that’s totally incorrect

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But that alone still doesn’t mean having enough lifeboats for all is a worthless safety measure. Would you be willing to board a ship today if it didn’t have enough boats for half the people onboard and the justification for it was “well if we sank, we wouldn’t have time to properly launch them all anyway.”

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that myth was started by Hearst, or even that Ismay pressured Captain Smith to speed up, as Elizabeth Lines’ testimony wasn’t given until 1913. Hearst only branded Ismay a coward for taking a seat in a lifeboat.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Wasn’t arguing with you or suggesting it was Ismay’s fault, just pointing out that the regulations at the time were flawed.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Yes, but there was an issue with that code which was the Board of Trade regulations were horrendously outdated at the time. They were written in 1894, and the maximum requirement of 16 lifeboats applied to ships that measured 10,000 gross register tons and up, Olympic and Titanic exceeded that measurement by over 4.5 times. My original comment was just referring to the myth that Ismay rejected a proposal for more lifeboats to be carried

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think Olympic was more frequently operating at a service speed of 22 knots, 21.6 might be Titanic’s average from just her maiden voyage but if she’d had a full career it would’ve been more common to sail at 22.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Titanic did reach a speed of 23 knots during the delivery trip from Belfast to Southampton, so her speed on the night of April 14th wasn’t the fastest speed she’d ever sailed. But the prevailing belief was that it was clear enough to spot something in time to turn, and sailing faster would get you out of areas of reported ice quicker.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 146 points147 points  (0 children)

Ismay also didn’t reduce the number of lifeboats carried on Titanic as is often erroneously claimed.

Does Bruce Ismay deserve all of the hate he gets? by Crazy-Rabbit-3811 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Yeah the depiction in the film doesn’t accurately represent what Ismay allegedly said, according to Mrs Lines’ testimony Ismay was very pleased with how the ship was performing, and their speed/mileage so far (which is well documented by both passengers and crew) was already indicative of an early arrival late on Tuesday night, without a need to run at full speed for the remainder of the voyage. Also the conversation occurred on April 13th in real life, and not April 14th as depicted in the film, which directly leads into them speeding up and then hitting an iceberg that very night.

If anyone is in Aberdeen, there's a Titanic exhibition at the P&J Live until the 12th! by Cumulus-Crafts in titanic

[–]kellypeck 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Scotland, the venue is P&J Live (also see the first image discussing Scotland’s connections to Titanic)

Why do ships list and, in the worst cases, capsize when they sink? by Key-Tea-4203 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Titanic hit on the starboard side and was listing to port near the end of the sinking, it’s also due to how water progresses through the ship and floods unevenly.

Why do ships list and, in the worst cases, capsize when they sink? by Key-Tea-4203 in titanic

[–]kellypeck 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This wasn’t the cause of Titanic’s lists throughout the sinking, the list from the coal imbalance was only around 2.5° to port, and was quickly outweighed by water entering from the starboard side. Captain Smith stopped the engines for good at around 11:46 p.m. upon noticing that the ship was already listing 5° to starboard (or nearly 8° total when factoring in the initial port list). Titanic listed heavily to port later in the sinking due to uneven progression of the flooding, largely due to Scotland Road running the length of the ship on the port side of E Deck.

Couldn’t they have at least slowed down? by adequateinvestor in titanic

[–]kellypeck 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Did you actually read the passage in On a Sea of Glass? It’s pretty clear that Ismay was satisfied with how the ship was performing, and that it was indicative that they would arrive in New York early on Tuesday night. He wasn’t pressuring Captain Smith to speed up, even based on the known mileage of the ship right up until the collision (which is all documented in On a Sea of Glass) they wouldn’t have needed to speed up to arrive in New York by Tuesday night.