4 ms·
Why? Bunker fires were common on coal fired ships, as was dealing with them by shovelling coal into the furnace, or venting steam. It's an interesting snippet,
by NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Why? Bunker fires were common on coal fired ships, as was dealing with them by shovelling coal into the furnace, or venting steam. It's an interesting snippet, but doesn't seem very compelling that it was a cause. I didn't watch the actual documentary, so only have the piece you linked to go on.
- afiori 8y agohigh speed in an ice patch -> disaster burning more coal than necessary -> high speed coal fire -> burning more coal
- kwhitefoot 8y agoThey could have gone further south.
- afiori 8y agoprobably they underestimated the risk
- gambiting 8y agoEven on a ship like the Titanic, it's not like the only way to slow down is to stop burning coal. They could have vented steam instead of using it for propulsion - that is always an option.
- jacobush 8y agoAnd incur more cost. The captain likely was under pressure to perform and get to harbor as fast and cheaply as possible.
- boudin 8y agoFrom a documentary on channel 4 about this, the risk was more to run out of coal before arriving as the fire would have been ongoing since the departure and been quite big.
- chris_wot 8y agoIt’s not just that. It made the steel brittle. Not a good combo in freezing water.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jacobush 8y agoDisregard the cause for a second - it's still not good PR to focus on a coal fire.