If you want to know what really happened on the night of 14/15 April 1912, you are not alone. In recent years we have learned a lot more as a result of scientific investigations into material retrieved from the seabed. There is little doubt that a collision with an iceberg was the determining factor that sent Titanic to the bottom of the Atlantic. But as to why such a thing should happen, the rest is largely speculation.
In the pages of The Titanic Document I have incorporated a theory of my own, and I have no doubt many will be sceptical. That’s fine with me, as my principal interest was to present a plausible scenario for an entertaining fiction. But aside from my interest as an author, I believe one of the reasons the disaster still holds such a fascination today is the enigma of doubt surrounding that one little word: Why?
It was that question that stuck in my mind after reading Robin Gardiner’s book Titanic—The Ship That Never Sank? (see Bibliography). While his theory that the near identical sister ships were deliberately swapped is largely debunked today, there was so much evidence presented in his book to indicate that something was going on, that I kept looking for an alternative solution.
The big thing that stood out for me was the behaviour of Stanley Lord, Captain of the Californian. According to Robin Gardiner, Lord deliberately steered his ship to a prearranged plan. He stopped for the night (wisely) on the edge of an icefield. We have to presume he was as close to his desired position as possible. But then he did two strange things: firstly, he ordered his engineer to keep a full head of steam to ensure that the engines would be available on his command; and secondly, instead of going to his bunk, he stayed fully dressed, stretching out his six-foot frame on a chart room sofa at least six inches shorter than he was. Both actions indicate that he was expecting something to happen during the night, for which both he and his ship (owned by the White Star Line) had to be ready. Curiously, his radio operator was not on duty, so Lord was not anticipating any news from that quarter. So why the state of readiness? Perhaps the answer lies in the reported statements given to the British Inquiry by members of his crew. They observed rocket signals from another vessel and told their captain. His immediate response was to ask about their colour. On being told they were not coloured (white), he showed no interest. So, what significance was the colour of the rockets? To me, the actions of both captains (Lord on the Californian and Smith on the Titanic) suggest they were following specific orders.
Some details we do know: Titanic was an hour late leaving Southampton because another ship moored nearby (SS New York) nearly collided with her from the same suction effect that caused the Hawke incident months earlier. Once all passengers were picked up (at Cherbourg and at Queenstown in Ireland), Captain Smith took the faster of two established routes across the Atlantic, directly contravening White Star’s own standing orders for that time of year. (No problem though, as the Chairman was on board.) He took the northern route, which was more direct and would save time, but was also known to be riskier because of icebergs. Time was clearly an issue, but as the Olympic class of ships were never intended to compete with Cunard for speed (opulence was what gave them the edge over their competitor), one has to wonder why Captain Smith was in such a hurry?
That brings me to the question asked by Ed in Chapter 10: why was Titanic going so fast when there was a danger of hitting an iceberg in limited visibility? My answer would be: because they needed to rendezvous with another vessel that did not (or could not) communicate by radio, and could only use rocket signals.
For me, that solution ties in with Gardiner’s documented evidence, and presents a scenario (a mid-ocean rendezvous in the middle of the night attracting few witnesses) that begs a further question: Why?
That is where my own speculation needed expansion, but then Gardiner and others provide further clues with many witnesses reporting sightings of a ‘mystery ship’ close by. The lights of a ship are variously described, and in some cases accompanied with clearer descriptions of a smaller vessel, including lifeboats in the water before Titanic had launched any. The British Inquiry concluded that all these sightings were of the Californian, thus making her captain (Stanley Lord) a scapegoat for not going to the aid of Titanic. If Robin Gardiner and I are correct, then the reason Lord stayed put was because he never saw the signal he was expecting, regardless of how near or far he was from the sinking.
Then the Inquiry itself provides another clue: Ismay’s ‘slip of the tongue’ being questioned about the speed of his doomed creation. What possible reason did he have for the use of the word “derelict”? When questioned by Sir Rufus Isaacs over the contents of a telegram he had discussed with two female passengers, he said: I cannot recollect what I said. I think I read part of the message to them about the ice and the derelict - not the derelict, but the steamer that was broken down; short of coal she was. So, he had intended to refer to a steamer that had run out of coal, but something in his brain made him use a term for something very different. Again, that question: Why?
One answer would be that there was a derelict ship in the region, but one that nobody has ever reported. In other words, one that Ismay knew about—but no-one else. The term was not one that passengers would use, and if any surviving crew member was aware of such a vessel in the vicinity, bear in mind that every last one of them were separated from reporters upon arrival in New York, and kept under strict supervision until their return to the UK. What was it that the White Star Line was afraid their employees might reveal, as opposed to the surviving passengers?
The suggestion that a derelict ship was to be met at a specific rendezvous point is my own, together with the idea that the intention was to stage a “rescue”. If that had been the case, and the operation had been successful, then the resulting publicity for the White Star Line would indeed have assured a major boost. J. P. Morgan might have seen his investment in the shipping industry well-rewarded, and the name of Titanic would have been noted in the history books for more agreeable reasons.
But of course, now we’ll never know—unless someone really does find that document.
Alan Veale, September 2020