I am installing fibre optic lighting on my 1/350 Titanic and I would like to ask if there were what appears to be small lights on the tops of both bridge wing cabs? Also would anyone know if there was an aft mast head light? Ken Marshall depicts one in some of his paintings and it is not apparent in other paintings. Any information regarding the above two questions would be appreciated. Thank you for your time!

Hi,

>I am installing fibre optic lighting on my 1/350 Titanic and
>I would like to ask if there were what appears to be small
>lights on the tops of both bridge wing cabs?

Yes, those were morse signal lamps.



>Also would anyone
>know if there was an aft mast head light? Ken Marshall depicts
>one in some of his paintings and it is not apparent in other
>paintings. Any information regarding the above two questions
>would be appreciated. Thank you for your time!

No there wasn't a "head light". There were docking lamps which faced P and S.


Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

There would be no point in using fiber optics for the Morse lamps, unless you were going to rig a circuit to manually flash them.

As to your second question, Bruce may have misunderstood you since you wrote "mast head light". There was, in fact, a "masthead light" on the mainmast (aft). This was an oil lamp, hoisted all the way to the point where the uppermost stay was attached to the mast. This light was higher than the masthead light on the foremast, in order that the two would form a set of range lights to indicate the ship's relative direction at night. (Note that the term "masthead light", by the way, does not necessarily mean that it was located at the very top of the mast.)

For a very good technique in using fiber optics to replicate these lamps, see William Barney's article on the subject.


Regards,

Art Braunschweiger
TRMA Trustee

I really need to get on the this site more often. There is much to be learned every time.

Art, are you sure that an oil lamp was used on the main mast as a range light at night? My understanding of the rules in effect at the time was that having two mast lights was optional. We know the ship had an electric mastlight on the formast. I did not know anything about carrying an oil lamp on the mainmast aft. The requirement would be that any light carried on the masts had to be seen from at least 5 nautical miles off, and the angle in the horizontal plane had to cover 10 points to port and 10 points to starboard from dead ahead. Also if a light on the mainmast was used it had to be at least 15 ft heigher than the light on the foremast.

Does anyone know how bright the electric mastlight was?

Sam

Sam,

There is survivor testimony of the last flickering light off the mast seen as the ship sank - and after the electric lights went out. This would have been an oil lamp. Oil lamps were very commony used for this purpose, and with the reflectors and so fourth, they apparentley did meet the range requirments. The masthead lamp had two 16 CP filaments - for a 32 CP shine. But that is amplified by the dioptec lense and any reflectors I would guess.



Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

Thanks Bruce for the getting back to me. Would you have the dimentions of the mastlight by chance? 32 CP should produce about 403 lumens of light intensity. In terms of a standard incandesent light bulb, that would be what a 28 W bulb (if they made one that size) would give off. I'd like to see if we can get an estimate for the amplication power of the lens. I also assume they had two filaments just in case one of them should burn out durning the night.

Sam

>Thanks Bruce for the getting back to me. Would you have the
>dimentions of the mastlight by chance?


No I don't. At one time I had tried to measure the masthead lamp through the glass at a Titanic Exhibit, but was rudley chased off by security for attempting to make recordings! This is the biggest beef I have with RMSTI is that they have yet to make public a full inventory and spec book on the artifacts, and I would have figured that the courts would have required this!

I may have scratched off on paper the rough dimensions of the housing, but doubt if I could find the notes. Occassionally I come across it however. I'll look where I think it is.




>32 CP should produce
>about 403 lumens of light intensity. In terms of a standard
>incandesent light bulb, that would be what a 28 W bulb (if
>they made one that size) would give off.


I know that converting CP to watts is nearly if not impossible. I though I heard somewhere that a 16 CP would be equal to about a 60 Watt bulb - which is more believable.




>I'd like to see if we
>can get an estimate for the amplication power of the lens. I
>also assume they had two filaments just in case one of them
>should burn out durning the night.


Yes. I have seen these in two designs, one with two filaments and another with two bulbs inside. I am pretty sure Titanic's was the single bulb variety.

I suppose with the right reflectors and lenses, one could get a low wattage bulb to carry a long way.

Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

Hello, Sorry... I just want to ask you Art,Bruce a other question, I was looking and cannot find my article (William Barney's article) around on the TRMA homepages?

Regards,

William Barney

>I know that converting CP to watts is nearly if not
>impossible. I though I heard somewhere that a 16 CP would be
>equal to about a 60 Watt bulb - which is more believable.
>

Hi Bruce: Well you really got me looking deeper into this. The conversion I used came as follows. One candlepower is equivalent to 12.57 lumens (http://www.theledlight.com/lumens.html.)

On a package for a standard 60 W incandescent light bulb they listed 870 average lumens. That converts to 870 lu/60W = 14.5 lu/W. So then I took your 32 CP x 12.57 lu/CP to get 402 lu, and then divided that by 14.5 to get 27.7 W.

This morning I took a 3-way bulb and it had 615 lu/50W, 1540 lu/100W, and 2155 lu/150W on the box. When I plot all these numbers it unfortunately shows a non-linear relationship between lumens and wattage. Lower the wattage, the poorer the efficiency. Extending the curve to the lower end it seems that 402 lu would be equivalent to about a 40 W bulb, or about 10 lu/W at these lower power ratings.

I think the key thing is working with lumens, which is a measure of light intensity.

>I suppose with the right reflectors and lenses, one could get
>a low wattage bulb to carry a long way.
>

I agree completely. That's the pricipal used in lighthouses with their Fresnel lens.

My reason for all this interest has to do with how far realistically would Titanic's mastlight be seen on a clear, moonless night compared to the relative brightness of the background stars. If my estimate is right, and correctly me please if I'm off on this, Titanic's electric mastlight on the foremast would have been about 140-145 ft above the water. The extreme range tables say this light should be coming up on the horizon seen by someone on the bridge of a ship with height of eye 45 ft above the water at distance of just under 22 miles. But it says nothing about the brightness at that distance. If the amplication of the lens was say 8.5 to bring the brightness of the light up to 3400 lumens, then at 15 miles off that light would be as bright as the bright star Regulus in the constellation Leo, which should make it quite noticeable.

Sam

Sam,


>Hi Bruce: Well you really got me looking deeper into this. The
>conversion I used came as follows. One candlepower is
>equivalent to 12.57 lumens
> http://www.theledlight.com/lumens.html.)

I think I saw that page once when I was looking into it.


>
>On a package for a standard 60 W incandescent light bulb they
>listed 870 average lumens. That converts to 870 lu/60W = 14.5
>lu/W. So then I took your 32 CP x 12.57 lu/CP to get 402 lu,
>and then divided that by 14.5 to get 27.7 W.

O.K.


>
>This morning I took a 3-way bulb and it had 615 lu/50W, 1540
>lu/100W, and 2155 lu/150W on the box. When I plot all these
>numbers it unfortunately shows a non-linear relationship
>between lumens and wattage. Lower the wattage, the poorer the
>efficiency. Extending the curve to the lower end it seems that
>402 lu would be equivalent to about a 40 W bulb, or about 10
>lu/W at these lower power ratings.
>
>I think the key thing is working with lumens, which is a
>measure of light intensity.
>
>>I suppose with the right reflectors and lenses, one could
>get
>>a low wattage bulb to carry a long way.
>>
>
>I agree completely. That's the pricipal used in lighthouses
>with their Fresnel lens.
>
>My reason for all this interest has to do with how far
>realistically would Titanic's mastlight be seen on a clear,
>moonless night compared to the relative brightness of the
>background stars. If my estimate is right, and correctly me
>please if I'm off on this, Titanic's electric mastlight on the
>foremast would have been about 140-145 ft above the water. The
>extreme range tables say this light should be coming up on the
>horizon seen by someone on the bridge of a ship with height of
>eye 45 ft above the water at distance of just under 22 miles.
>But it says nothing about the brightness at that distance. If
>the amplication of the lens was say 8.5 to bring the
>brightness of the light up to 3400 lumens, then at 15 miles
>off that light would be as bright as the bright star Regulus
>in the constellation Leo, which should make it quite
>noticeable.

O.K so the 32 Cp is quite possible and likley as the references I have state? Right?



Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

I don't have any figures for the dioptric lenses used for masthead lights and such, but I do have some experience with the lenses used in railroad signal lights. Don't underestimate the ability of a lens to focus light, either in a beam or a radial plane (if I'm using the latter term correctly). Lighthouses aside, here in the U.S. a typical trackside (railroad) signal light that projects a beam for miles is illuminated by no more than a small, clear 10-volt bulb of only 40 watts, if memory serves. A 16-cp bulb should easily be visible for several miles with the right kind of lens.


Regards,

Art Braunschweiger
TRMA Trustee

Does anyone know what the oil lamp on the Aft Mast would have looked like, as I would like to include it on my model.

Chris

I think Art may be able to dig up a comperable oil lamp illustration. The lamp had a special traveler it used to keep it from spinning on the stay also.


Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

Hi folks. I've done a bit more research into masthead light of Titanic. As you may know, I am interested in knowing the brightness of this light as seen from a distance. In particular, I was interested in knowing if the masthead light could be seen coming up on the horizon from the bridge of a ship with height of eye of about 45 ft above the waterline, and if so, just how would it compare to the background stars. The background to all this is 3/O Groves of the Californian who testified that he saw the light of a steamer come up about 10 minutes after 11 (Californian time) but did not pay too much attention to it at first thinking it may have been a rising star.

Titanic's electric masthead light had 32 total CP from 2 filaments of 16 CP each according to Bruce Beveridge. One candlepower is equivalent to 12.57 lumens. Therefore the filaments produced 402 lumens of light intensity (about as much as a 40W incandescent bulb).

Titanic's electric masthead light on the foremast would have been about 140-145 ft above the water. The extreme range tables say this light should be coming up on the horizon as seen by someone on the bridge of a ship with height of eye 45 ft above the water at distance of just under 22 miles if bright enough.

Now a star of 1st magnitude has the same brightness as a single candle at 1098 meters, or 3602 ft (http://www.geocities.com/michaelcapobianco/PhotometryStarlight.htm). Since brightness falls off as the square of the distance, something that is 32 times as bright as a single candle could be seen 5.66 times (sqrt 32) further away and appear just as bright. Therefore, without lens amplification, 32 CP at a distance of 3602 x 5.66 = 20378 ft on a clear dark night would have the same brightness as a 1st magnitude star. This is a distance of about 3.4 nautical miles.

We now have to take into account the amplification of the masthead lens on Titanic; i.e., its light gathering power. Using the principal of reciprocity, the gain of the lens in transmitting light is the same as the gain of the lens in receiving light. Normally the gain of one lens relative to another is the ratio of the areas, or the increase in light gathering power. However, the masthead light lens only had gain in the vertical plane, concentrating the light into a narrow beam along an arc in the horizontal plane of 20 points (225°), 10 points to port and 10 points to starboard from the dead ahead. Since the gain of the lens was only in the vertical plane, the gain we have to use is the ratio of the height of the lens to the diameter of the lens opening of the human eye.

Looking at the masthead light lens on the Titanic (as can be seen in the attached photographs from Denise Hunyadi) we see that Titanic’s masthead light lens was about 8 inches in height. It also well known that the iris of the human eye on a very dark night has an opening of about 8 mm, or 0.32 inches. Therefore the ratio we are interested in is 8/0.32 = 25, the light gain due the refraction of the dioptric prisms of Titanic’s masthead light lens.

Again using the fact that brightness falls off as the square of the distance, we find that the masthead light of Titanic would appear as bright as a 1st magnitude star at a distance of 5 (sqrt 25) x 3.4 = 17 nautical miles away. When the light first comes over the visible horizon to someone on the bridge of ship with height of eye 45 ft above the water 22 miles away, it would appear as a star of magnitude 1.56, about as bright as the bright star Castor in the constellation Gemini. At 12 miles away, the masthead light would appear as bright as a magnitude 0.25 star, or almost as bright as the star Rigel in Orion, and brighter than the bright star Procyon in Canis Minor.


Many thanks to Denise Hunyadi for the photographs of the recovered masthead light that were taken at The Great Lakes Science Center in Cleveland, OH in 2002.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Sam,


Nice work. What are you trying to illustrate here?

If you trying to show Titanica once again that those men on the Californian were basically watching the Titanic sink, you have just added once again to the facts. Every once in a while the Californian issue rears it's ugly head here at the TRMA, and once again I am ever so glad to repost what will follow. I have been called "insensitive to human error" and other tripe like this, but I am a realist. People seem to want to keep writing books and articles about this Californian incident, articles and books I never waste my time reading. The fact of the matter is that the officer's on the bridge that night saw 8 distress rockets, admitted to it, and got pulled on the carpet over it later (and it is blatantly obvious in the testimony). Being an Investigator and having booked many hours on the stand, I can read right into the BOT testimony, and see it in my mind. Those men made no exerted effort to do what they knew later they should have.

How far away these two ships were, who was in between, the sighting of the Flying Dutchman - makes absolutely no difference. One can write books 'til one is blue in the face, but the fact remains that those officers on the bridge ignored the exigency of observing distress rockets. Any other excuse that one poses is completely irrelevant. Lord is lucky he was not suspended. I guess the stigma that followed him was enough punishment.


Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

Actually Bruce, my intent is to put to bed the assertion by some authors that Titanic's mast light could not have been seen as far away as 22 miles when it came over the visible horizon.

Sam

Something I would agree with you on there Sam.
Hope you had a great Christmas, and best for a New Year.

Steve

Sam,

And that is in regards to the Californian?


Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

>
>And that is in regards to the Californian?
>

Yes. The height of eye of person standing on Californian's upper bridge was about 45 ft above the water. The visible horizon was 7.8 miles, but the masthead light of an approaching steamer would be seen well before the ship came over the horizon. In the case of the Titanic, the light would first appear on the horizon at 22 miles away if it were bright enough to be noticed against the background stars. That is what I showed to be the case.

The geometry of the problem is shown in the attached diagram. 3/O Groves first noticed the masthead light of a steamer rising above the horizon about 11:10. He also notice the steamer was stopped by 11:40 after returning the bridge after speaking with Lord about the approaching steamer. In 30 minutes Titanic would have covered a distance of about 11 miles. We also know the Titanic was heading S86°W true (266°). The other piece of information comes from 3/O Grove and 2/O Stone who both confirmed the bearing to the stopped steamer at about 12:10 was SSE magnetic which was equal to SE true.

It is a simple geometric solution to find the distance between the two stopped ships using the law of sines. This comes out to 13 miles. A word of caution to all of this being that the times given were approximate. (see att.)

Sam

Attachment #1, (gif file)

Sam,

Love your work!


Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

Excellent work there. Just one question: how does the brightness of the red and green sidelights compare to the mastlight?

TIA

Paul

--
http://www.paullee.com

Paul,

Same as the masthead lamp. Twin 16-cp filaments for a total of 32 cp.

Sam,

outstanding work. You may not realize it, but you have also helped to prove the fact that the after masthead light was an oil lamp. Survivor Elizabeth Shutes told of a single light remaining at the masthead after the ship lost all power, describing this as "a powerless little spark." As your diagram of a dioptric lens illustrates, a lamp with such a lens would appear very dim if viewed at a significant angle from the dioptric plane, as could have been the case looking at the masthead from a lifeboat.


Regards,

Art

Hi Art.

Thanks for the information on the sidelight filaments. Looking at close-up photos of Olympic and Titanic it appears that the height of the sidelight lenses were about the same as the masthead light, somewhere about 8 inches. These means that they would appear about as bright except for the losses in the color filters that made them appears as red or green. The absorptive filters would have consisted of glass that had been doped with a concentration of dye that absorbs particular colors letting other colors pass through. It should also be pointed out that the eye is most sensitive in the yellow-green region of the spectrum, about 570 nanometers wavelength. A typical transmission factor for green filtered light might be about 35 to 40%. That would translate to a reduction in range of about 60%. The rules in effect at the time for steamers required a white masthead light to be seen at a minimum distance of 5 miles. That allowed for the use of oil lamps. The minimum distance for sidelights were 2 miles. It is obvious that the reduced sidelight distance in the rules was to acknowledge the absorption due to the concentration of dyes used to get them to appear as red or green.

On a separate note, the rule for a stern light was that it had to be seen at least 1 mile off. They were also typically mounted on the rail at the stern of the vessel making them appear very low down and close to the horizon.

Regarding an oil lamp mounted on the Titanic's mainmast, is there any definitive information that such a light existed other than what Elizabeth Shutes said? I don’t agree that what I posted had anything to do with proving that an oil lamp existed was on the mainmast at all. Is there anything on the rigging plans to show that an oil lamp would be there? I know the Britannic rigging plans showed provision for two electric masthead lights, one on the foremast and the other on the mainmast. But I would think that the rigging plans for Titanic would show the provision for hosting an oil lamp and the guide lines to keep it oriented properly if one were really used. I need more evidence than a statement by a single passenger in a lifeboat.

Sam

Sam,

The rigging plans show that halyards were rove through two blocks on travelers on the aft backstay that ran to the base of the docking bridge. While neither of these had separate "arms" from which stays could be rigged through stay guides on an anchor lamp, this doesn't mean anything, as not all anchor lamps had stay guides on the sides of their housing - some had a separate bail that hinged to hang below the lamp, with an eye to attach a single line that would be belayed on deck with the line taught. The traveler over the Forecastle Deck did have separate stay lines, but this would be expected for the anchor lamp over the bows since it would normally be subjected to the full force of the wind.

Of course these halyards would have also been used for an arc lamp and an anchor lamp as necessary, so I am not saying they represent concrete proof - but their presence would permit the use of a masthead lamp there.


Regards,

Art Braunschweiger

Art:

If a mastlight was hoisted on the mainmast it would have to have been in accordance with the rules that said:

A steam vessel when under way may carry an additional white light similar in construction to the light mentioned in subdivision (a). These two lights shall be so placed in line with the keel that one shall be at least 15 feet higher than the other, and in such a position with reference to each other that the lower light shall be forward of the upper one. The vertical distance between these two lights shall be less than the horizontal distance.

I just don't see how they could comply with this.

Sam

Sam,

Why not? If an oil-burning lamp was hoisted to the point where the aftmost backstay met the mainmast, it would have been much higher than 15 feet above the forward masthead light.


- Art

Art, the height is not the real problem. How could an additional light "similar in construction" to the light on the foremast be hoisted on a block connected to a traveler on the after backstay and be oriented when it reached the top so that it threw an unbroken arc of coverage from right ahead to 2 points abaft the beam on either side without the mast itself getting in the way? Is there some diagram that you can post to show how this would be done?

Sam

Thanks for your replies.
A question for Sam: since the Fresnel lens focuses light in a horizontal manner, any ship having a sizeable trim would have a perceived, reduced light output...?

--
http://www.paullee.com

Hi Paul. When you say "having a sizeable trim" that needs to be quantified. Titanic never developed a trim greater than 5 degrees down by the head over the first 2 hours after the collision. By 2:05 a.m. it reached only about 6 degrees. Then the ship started to loose longitudinal stability and the trim started to change much more rapidly reaching about 10 degrees when 2/O Lightoller jumped into the water. That was very close to the end.

The affect of being off axis dependended on the location of the viewer. Viewed from the side, a trim down condition would have no affect unless there was a list as well. Viewed from head on there would be some attenuation because of the axis change. The beam width (half power points) of these types of lenses in the vertical plane are not extremely narrow.

Sam

Art, Bruce.

Unless someone can prove me wrong, I think it is wrong to conclude that an oil masthead light was ever mounted on the Titanic. Elizabeth Shutes' account in my opinion does not come close to describing an oil masthead light. Her account reads as follows:

"A sea, calm as a pond, kept our boat steady, and now that mammoth ship is fast, fast disappearing. Only one tiny light is left - a powerless little spark, a lantern fastened to the mast. Fascinated, I watched that black outline until the end."

Now that doesn't say they didn't hoist a lamp up on the mast. It just doesn't describe a mast light, nor does say how high up the mast it was.

Now I understand that the 1907 IMM rules said that a 2nd masthead light if used had to be oil. But it would likely have been in violation of requirements that were in effect in 1912 which said a 2nd masthead light had to be the same character as that on the foremast.

In a 1910 requirements for second mate it said: "A second may be carried exactly similar to the first. They must be placed in a line with the keel, the forward light at least 15 feet lower than the after one, and the horizontal distance must be greater than the vertical."

The original rigging plans for Britannic had two electric mast lights. No such arrangement was on the plan for Titanic. My guess is that the IMM rule book that Ismay offered up to the inquiry was not quite up to date.

Bottom line for me is that there was no 2nd masthead light, oil or otherwise, on the Titanic.

Again, can someone prove me wrong?

Sam

Sam,


The proof is the woman's statement. There is nothing else that exists. How can that woman's statement not be construed as an oil lamp? What she states is not something one would expect a woman to invent from post disaster trauma.


I understand that the bridge crew of the Californian state they only saw the formast light. But - what is to say that the minimum distance requirements were met by the oil lamp, but the Californian was out of range to see the oil lamp, but still see the electric lamp which may have shown farther than required? Was there anything that sated the electric lamp could not show farther then required?

Certainly this lady was not making this up. What else could she be describing? There is no other reason to hoist an after lamp that I can think of in this circumstance, other then as a masthead lamp.

I don't have the rules in front of me, but the mere fact that this was an option for any ship, must have taken into account for the slight loss of light projected right forward by the presence of the mast. I'm sure that at a distance, the mast would not even be noticable. Espeacially with the thinning of the thing that high up.


>Unless someone can prove me wrong, I think it is wrong to
>conclude that an oil masthead light was ever mounted on the
>Titanic. Elizabeth Shutes' account in my opinion does not come
>close to describing an oil masthead light. Her account reads
>as follows:
>
>"A sea, calm as a pond, kept our boat steady, and now that
>mammoth ship is fast, fast disappearing. Only one tiny light
>is left - a powerless little spark, a lantern fastened to the
>mast. Fascinated, I watched that black outline until the
>end."



She names the oil lamp, something people of this era were quite used to seeing. What else was she taking about?


>
>Now that doesn't say they didn't hoist a lamp up on the mast.
>It just doesn't describe a mast light, nor does say how high
>up the mast it was.


Right, but there would be no other reason to hoist an oil lamp, unless your implying they they hoisted the lamps in the "at anchor" style.



>
>Now I understand that the 1907 IMM rules said that a 2nd
>masthead light if used had to be oil. But it would likely have
>been in violation of requirements that were in effect in 1912
>which said a 2nd masthead light had to be the same character
>as that on the foremast.
>
>In a 1910 requirements for second mate it said: "A second
> may be carried exactly similar to the first. They
>must be placed in a line with the keel, the forward light at
>least 15 feet lower than the after one, and the horizontal
>distance must be greater than the vertical."




Yes - what's the problem here? They aren't saying the oil lamp has to be of the exact same housing design as the fore light, they are only stating that the character of the illumination has to be the same in order to meet the sight distance and angle requirements. The fore lamp may have allowed for an even farther distance, but as long as the two met the minimum, they served the purposes of the rule.


>
>The original rigging plans for Britannic had two electric mast
>lights. No such arrangement was on the plan for Titanic. My
>guess is that the IMM rule book that Ismay offered up to the
>inquiry was not quite up to date.
>
>Bottom line for me is that there was no 2nd masthead light,
>oil or otherwise, on the Titanic.
>
>Again, can someone prove me wrong?

I understand where you are coming from, but this lady was far to precise to be making this up. I believe the oil lamp was there. Why Californian didn't see it (if they didn't), is a question that needs to be answered. Again, they may have been out of range for the oil lamp, but not the electric lamp.


Bruce

>>I don't have the rules in front of me, but the mere fact that this was an option for any ship, must have taken into account for the slight loss of light projected right forward by the presence of the mast. I'm sure that at a distance, the mast would not even be noticable. Espeacially with the thinning of the thing that high up.<<

Bruce, I believe you are coming to a conclusiuon based on an assumption. The assumption is that Elizabeth was describing an oil masthead light, and that it mounted high up on the mainmast. But she only described a "lantern fastened to the mast," nothing more. It could very well have been an all-around anchor light that was put up after they swung out the boats, or even later when the power started to fail. (The electric lights were described as getting dimmer or more reddish toward the end.) I just don't know. Non of us were there.

But let's suppose we assume there was an oil masthead light raised to the near where the backstay meets the mainmast. Looking at the rigging plan of Britannic we can see a narrow ladder alongside the mast going up to where this electric masthead light was mounted so it can be serviced when necessary. That light itself was located about 5 ft below the level where the backstay meets the mast. We also know the approximate dimensions of the electric mastlight, a photograph of which I had posted upthread. It is clear to me that the diameter of the mast at the height we are concerned with would be about 8 inches if not more. If a light was run up to that level, the mast itself would cut off a sizable arc forward, a minimum of 60 degrees if not more. (I can show you the details for this calculation if you like.) This would be in clear violation of the rules which require an unbroken arc 112.5 deg to either side of dead ahead on the centerline. If masthead light was to be sent up on the mainmast it would have to be on the forward side side of the mast, not the back side. Unless you have some rigging details that would allow for that, there is no way for the lamp seen by Elizabeth Shutes to have been a masthead light.

Sam

Sam,


>Bruce, I believe you are coming to a conclusiuon based on an
>assumption. The assumption is that Elizabeth was describing an
>oil masthead light, and that it mounted high up on the
>mainmast. But she only described a "lantern fastened to the
>mast," nothing more. It could very well have been an
>all-around anchor light that was put up after they swung out
>the boats, or even later when the power started to fail. (The
>electric lights were described as getting dimmer or more
>reddish toward the end.) I just don't know. Non of us were
>there.

Your assumptions are possible, but as you stated we will never know. I do however find it odd that they would hang an oil lamp on the (or from the) mast to compensate for dimming lights that were not that bright to begin with. In fact, the dimming lights that were present were probably either the emergency circuit lights that were on, or the momentary dimming seen in the last moments of the sinking. It doesn't jibe with me - not when she says the mast. An oil lamp tied off to a stanchion maybe, but not the mast. I had thought at one time that the light was put out as an indication of "vessel not under power" - or whatever the correct term was in the rules.


>
>But let's suppose we assume there was an oil masthead light
>raised to the near where the backstay meets the mainmast.
>Looking at the rigging plan of Britannic we can see a narrow
>ladder alongside the mast going up to where this electric
>masthead light was mounted so it can be serviced when
>necessary. That light itself was located about 5 ft below the
>level where the backstay meets the mast. We also know the
>approximate dimensions of the electric mastlight, a photograph
>of which I had posted upthread. It is clear to me that the
>diameter of the mast at the height we are concerned with would
>be about 8 inches if not more. If a light was run up to that
>level, the mast itself would cut off a sizable arc forward, a
>minimum of 60 degrees if not more. (I can show you the details
>for this calculation if you like.) This would be in clear
>violation of the rules which require an unbroken arc 112.5 deg
>to either side of dead ahead on the centerline. If masthead
>light was to be sent up on the mainmast it would have to be on
>the forward side side of the mast, not the back side. Unless
>you have some rigging details that would allow for that, there
>is no way for the lamp seen by Elizabeth Shutes to have been a
>masthead light.


There are no rigging detals that I know of for the raising of the after masthead lamp on the Olympic class liners. In fact, I don't recall seeing it on other ships of the White Star Line's rigging plans either. I also don't have the energy or the stamina to go out in the 10 degree cold garage and dig for the rigging plans, of which I have many from other White Star ships from before the war. If I have the time, I'll go and look at the Baltic and Adriatic etc.

These travelers were not necessarily a permenant part of the rigging and may not show up on rigging plans. It is possible it was raised on the fore side of the mast. Again - we don't know, but Mrs. Shutes did, and she described it as clear as day.


Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

>>There are no rigging detals that I know of for the raising of the after masthead lamp on the Olympic class liners. In fact, I don't recall seeing it on other ships of the White Star Line's rigging plans either. <<

That would not surprise me. Those IMM rules were written when electric light was not considered too reliable.

It was "Rule 20. - Navigation Lights." That rule, which was still in effect at the time of Titanic, required that "oil lights in addition always kept ready for lighting in case of accident, and when used they must be placed in accordance with Government regulations only." It also stipulated that oil masthead and side lights are to be used INSTEAD of electric lights when navigating channels from the night before arriving into or after departing from any port, and elsewhere in fog or misty weather. The last paragraph of the rule read, "At all times one of the two masthead lights carried must be of oil; where only one is carried, it may be electric light, except under the foregoing circumstances."

By time of Olympic and Titanic, and the use of dual filaments, that IMM rule in my opinion was quite obsolete, especially the requirement that they had to use oil lights instead of the brighter electric lights in fog and mist and when crossing channels. I can understand, in view of that last paragraph of those IMM rules, why there was no electric mainmast light installed on Olympic and Titanic or other WSL ships at that time. They were not allowed to do so because of an obsolete set of rules that were still in effect. And in my opinion, it really makes no sense to put up a relatively dim oil light on the mainmast because it would defeat the purpose of using two lights for ranging if only one could be seen from far off. By time of Britannic, that IMM rule was subsequently changed to allow for two electric masthead lights.

Bruce, I have learned not to always trust people's rememberances without some other strong supporting evidence. And certainly not to draw conclusions on an observation that was not specific enough to do so. The only thing I get from Shute's statement is that she saw what looked like a dimly lit lantern fastened to the mast. And since the lights on the ship had already gone out when she made that observation, it is not clear to me the lantern she saw was actually fastened to the mast itself or hanging off one of the stays nearby.

Sam

No message

No message

I am going to chime in here. Sam, I don't have the answer to the original question you posed as to exactly how an after masthead light was hoisted such that it was properly screened to illuminate in a forward direction. However, just because we can't figure it out isn't a reason to say that it couldn't be done or that such a lamp could not have existed in this location. As to the possibility of it being an anchor lamp, that's no good, because (aside from the ship not being at anchor) as you know the anchor lamp at the stern was required to be displayed lower than the forward one, which would put it in such a position on the backstay that there is no way anyone would describe it as being on the mast. An all-around white light for overtaking vessels doesn't apply either, because that purpose was served by the oyster light at the stern. Besides, given what was going on, no one was going to be hoisting lamps at that point - and even if they were, that would have been the responsibility of the Lamp Trimmer, who was fully occupied in filling the lamps for the lifeboats and carrying them to the various lifeboat stations.


Regards,

Art

By the way folks, please notice the same assumption we are all making here about Elezabeth Shute's statement about "a laturn fastened to the mast." She never identifies which mast she was referring to.

Sam

"....and even if they were, that would have been the responsibility of the Lamp Trimmer, who was fully occupied in filling the lamps for the lifeboats and carrying them to the various lifeboat stations."

Art,
the 'trimmer' must have been otherwise occupied at the time, almost all the lamps in the lifeboats had no oil in them at all.
I'm not sure if the lamps were already in the lifeboats or been brought from the lamp room. In either case, they all except a few had no oil.
Interesting topic this thread.
From memory, there was another reference to the lamp in question (but where did I see it now ?).

Steve

Steve,

I don't believe the issue was no oil in the lamps, but rather that some of the lifeboats had left before they received their lamp. Hemming did endeavor to fill and supply all the lamps. Here is the relevant testimony (near the end of the page):

http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq15Hemming01.php


Regards,

Art

Actually I have a read of that while I'm having a coffee Art.

Cheers,
Steve

One would assume the Morse lamps to show white light.

Colonel Archibald Gracie was a survivor of the Titanic sinking. He authored “The Truth about the Titanic” which was published in 1913. He wrote that he saw the first and subsequent rockets go up while he was on the boat deck. He also wrote “These were followed by the Morse red and blue lights, which were signaled near by us on the deck where we were; but we looked in vain for any response.”

Generally one would expect the covers on a Morse lamp to be clear, and thus the light white. But Gracie explicitly states they were red and blue. In the case of the Titanic did the two Morse lamps show red and blue? Was one red and the other blue? Was this something new on the Titanic?

Bruce can provide you with the specs on the lights, but aside from that, Lightoller's testimony records that only the Morse lamp on the port side was used. Being that the Morse lamps were equipped with dioptric lenses which were designed to concentrate the light in a horizontal plane, I have to wonder if Gracie, from his lower vantage point on deck, and therefore viewing them from below the horizontal plane of the lens, wasn't seeing some kind of refractive effect resulting from the prism of the lens.

It would not have made sense to have colored lenses anyway, as neither red nor blue - and especially blue - would not have been as visible or as readily noticeable at greater distances, especially during the hours of sunset or sunrise.


Regards,

Art Braunschweiger
TRMA Trustee

Eye witness accounts are gennerally not very reliable especially when it comes to subjective things like colors. For example, the regulation distress socket signals fired from Titanic were white in color, yet several people reported them as having colors in them.


Sam

http://www.geocities.com/samuel_halpern/mypage.html

"Eye witness accounts are gennerally not very reliable especially when it comes to subjective things like colors. For example, the regulation distress socket signals fired from Titanic were white in color, yet several people reported them as having colors in them."
--------------

Sam is so right in what he said above.
Anyone that hasn't visited Sam's site . . . . should drop by and read his research work.
This guy is one of the most diligent and comprehensive researchers there is today.

Yes eyewitnesses can be wrong, but they can also be right. Much of what we know about the Titanic sinking comes from eyewitnesses. The testimony has to be weighed when there are differences.

Gracie wrote that Morse lights (plural) were used. AB Symons backs him up that both starboard and port Morse lights were used.

Gracie also states two colors, blue and red. So he is not just perhaps mistaking a white light with a red tinge. He specifically mentions two colors. That is more particular than just mentioning one color such as red.

I hope Bruce Beveridge can find the specifications on the Morse lamps and see if they say anything about what color they projected. Hopefully the specs will answer the question once and for all.

Gracie wrote that the Morse lights were red and blue. He was there. Let's see if the specs back him up or refute him. I look forward to hearing from Bruce.

Mr. Lemko,

You seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility that Gracie may have been wrong in what he remembered. Remember that there were also a number of eyewitnesses who swore the ship went down in one piece.

The sticking point here is that there would have been no logical explanation for having lenses in any other color than clear. If you're suggesting that they were indeed red and/or blue, then you also need a plausible explanation for what benefit such colors would give over clear lenses.


Regards,

Art Braunschweiger
TRMA Trustee

Dear Art,

I started out with this in post 27435

"One would assume the Morse lamps to show white light."

I wrote in 27452

"Gracie was a careful observer, and I'm interested to see if he was correct or mistaken in this instance."

I wrote in 27466

"Let's see if the specs back him up or refute him."

I see no evidence at all that I'm unwilling to see Gracie proved wrong. This is a forum for Titanic research. I'm looking for help in evaluating Gracie's written statement. This is an area of interest to me.

If the specs clear it up one way or the other that would be great. Bruce just posted that the specs don't specify it one way or the other. He said he will look further. I appreciate that.

Art, neither of us was on the ship that night. Gracie was. Just because something doesn't make sense to us, does not prove it false.

If ultimately the specs don't tell us one way or the other, then we don't know for sure. The other thing I can do is look to see if there is any other witness who backs up Gracie.

AB Symons backs up Gracie that both Morse lamps were used.


One can never exhaust Titanic research. Regards.

Art,

Thank you for your answer. I am definitely interested in what the design specs have for the Morse lamps. I hope you or Bruce can find it.

Gracie was a careful observer, and I'm interested to see if he was correct or mistaken in this instance.

AB George Symons testified both Morse lamps were used.

11468. Before you left the boat deck had you noticed any rockets being fired from the bridge?

- Yes, the rockets were going up simultaneously, every minute, minute intervals, and that steamer's light was in sight about a point and a half on the port bow, roughly between five and ten miles away when they fired the rockets, and they were also working the starboard and port Morse lights.

This is a good question, and one I don't have an answer for. I will keep looking, but as it stands now, I see nothing that states the Morse lamp cannot be colored. The "specs" I have state nothing on lens color.

I can say this, and that is I have an image of Olympic in 1911, and one Morse lamp is shown as clear as a bell, with no inboard cover or any sign of a colored lens.



Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I could not imagine seeing them any other colour than what was standard.

Steve

Thank you Bruce,

Looking at the picture, the glass on the outside is definitely clear. The mechanism on the inside is dark. I can't tell from looking at it whether it would project white or a color.

If you can find out more information it would be appreciated greatly. Do the specs state who manufactured the Morse lamps? Could we follow up with that company if it still exists? I'm willing to contact them myself if you can provide me the information. This is an area of particular interest to me.

I'm willing for Gracie to be proved wrong. As a researcher though, I can't in good conscience just assume he is wrong.

I look forward to further information.

You can try, but I don't think they are around anymore. The company that manufactured them was McGeoch & Co. Ltd of Birmingham. They were of Wightman's Patent.


Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

Lemko,

You may have misunderstood me in my reply further up in this thread. I'm not dismissing Gracie's testimony out of hand. The point I was trying to make is that in considering a new possibility, it has to make sense. In the absence of any information either way from the manufacturer, all you have is Gracie's testimony. I have postulated one argument against colored lenses, and come up with a possible explanation for why Gracie thought he saw what he reported. In order to give fair consideration to what is suggested by Gracie's testimony, an explanation has to be proposed to support it. Do you see what I mean? Red and blue lenses make no sense, at least as far as I can see from my knowledge of navigation, lamps and signalling (not that I'm an expert, by any means) and I have never read of them being used in this manner. We need an explanation for why colored lenses might have been used. If a plausible explanation could be found (plausible, not wild guess) then there would be more of a reason to keep digging.


Regards,

Art Braunschweiger
TRMA Trustee

Art,

I agree. I have not seen anything yet that states the colors could not be green and red to match the corresponding side of the ship, but I'm sure it is out there somewherwe. I have never seen colored lamps for Morse signal lamps before - unless it is a war ship or something.


I can't for the life of me see why one would use the same color as the port or starboard navigating light for a Morse signal. You'd want some contrasting color, otherwise the Morse taps could get confused as distortion of the navigating lamp, or what have you, from greater distances - at least I would assume. Gracie must have mixed up the color of the navigating lamp and the Morse in his story. Has anyone else stated that the Morse signals were undertaken in colored lights?



Bruce
TRMA Trustee


Sorry for any spelling mistakes.

If there were a good reason for the Morse lamps to be colored you would see it in the specifications calling for it. Lack of such specification implies they were clear lamps. As far as I'm aware of, there are no reasons for them be colored and very good reasons why they would be clear.

In reading Gracie's tale it is not even clear that he actually saw the Morse signaling. He decribed finding himself part of the time on the boat deck and part of the time on Deck A. He then states that he was on the boat deck when he saw and heard the first rocket, and then successive ones at intervals. He then said "these were followed by the Morse red and blue lights which were signaled near us on the deck we were; but we looked in vain for any response". It was then followed with a paragraph that began, "And now I am on Deck A again, where I helped in the loading of two boats lowered from the deck above."

So what deck was he on when he was describing the Morse lights? It should be noted that much of what he wrote in his book was not first hand observations. Even his description of when he awoke is very questionable. He said he awoke as the result of the collision, and looked at his watch on the dresser which indicated it was 12 o'clock. He then said he immediatly noticed that the ship was blowing off steam and the machinery had stopped. He later said that he saw on the Carpathia that his watch had stopped at 2:22 as a result of getting in the water at the end. This was in testimony before the American Inquiry.

The safety valves would not have blown off that quickly. It would have taken some time before the boilers to over-pressure especially since the dampers were closed moments before the collision. More than likely, it was the noises in the hallway that awoke Gracie near midnight, and not the collision itself. He would not have been the first person to have slept through the main event.

Just some things to think about.

Sam

http://www.geocities.com/samuel_halpern/mypage.html

First, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful replies.

Bruce, just to clarify one point.

Sidelights are green on starboard and red on port

Gracie wrote "the Morse red and blue lights"

So there is not a complete match up of Gracie's claim for colors with the sidelights.

RED and GREEN vs. RED and BLUE.

I started this whole line of research with the statement that I would assume Morse lights to be white.

Since there are many on this board who are far more knowledgeable in the construction and equipping of the Titanic than I am, I posted to see if there was any corroborative evidence or testimony supporting Gracie.

So far, no one knows of any, and the general thought is that white light makes sense, and Gracie probably made a mistake.

It is of interest to me, so I will research further myself, and post if I find anything additional.

Again, thanks to all for you responses.

I did a little digging into the inquiries regarding the use of Morse lamps to see if any information about color was given. At the American Inquiry Boxhall was asked about the Morse lamps. This is what he had to say:

Senator SMITH. In order that the record may be complete, will you kindly explain a little more in detail how the Morse signal is given.
Mr. BOXHALL. By means of a telegraphic key and a Morse lamp. It is a series of dots and dashes.
Senator SMITH. Which are reflected?
Mr. BOXHALL. No; there is no reflection at all; it is just simply showing the light in and out - an electric light.

There is no mention of any color in the light, while other testimony where sidelights were talked about, a color was always specified.

At the British Inquiry there was exchange with the Apprentice Gibson who was on the bridge of the Californian:

7441. Did you notice anything about her masthead light, her white light? - Yes.
7442. What was it? - It was flickering.
7443. Did you form an opinion about it; what did you think she was doing? - I thought it was a Morse light calling us up.
7444. That would be using her masthead light to send Morse signals? - I did not know it was the masthead light then.
7445. Using a light to send Morse signals? - Yes.
7446. Did you report this? - I went to the keyboard and called it up. I went to our keyboard and called her up.
7447. Is the keyboard that you speak of the keyboard, that would work your Morse signaling? - Yes, Sir.
7448. When you work your Morse signaling with your keyboard, what is the light that you flash? - On top of the bridge.


Notice that the flickering of masthead light, specifically mentioned as being a white light, was originally mistaken for a Morse signal lamp coming from the observed vessel. Again, this points to there being no expected color in Morse signal lamps.

Hope this helps.

Sam

http://www.geocities.com/samuel_halpern/mypage.html

Sam,

Excellent research. Thanks.

While looking for something else I ran across this closeup picture in this site's archive, that to me, clearly shows the Morse lamp above the wing cab on the Olympic was clear:



Using the width of Capt. Smith's right hand as a reference (taken about 5 inches), I'd guess the lamp's lens was about 4 inches in height. (see cropped image below.)

This would have a bearing on the power of the dioptic lens. Does anyone have the actual dimensions of the light? Was the light's CP about 25? We can then estimate its brightness as seen from a given distance from the ship.

Sam

http://www.geocities.com/samuel_halpern/mypage.html

Attachment #1, (gif file)

Sam:
A while back I drew this Morse lamp. I used other structures to estimate the size. Attached is a drawing with a scale insert.

Regards,
Bob Read

Attachment #1, (jpg file)