Titanic doesn't hit the iceberg. What causes the safety regulations to improve?

Admiral Halsey · Nov 4, 2014

So I was talking to a friend the other day about shipwrecks and the effects on safety they had. Of course we ended up talking about the Titanic and how if she hadn't sunk how long until the safety regulations her sinking brought about would be implemented. I ended up deciding it wouldn't have improved until a disaster like the Titanic's happens while he said it would eventually happen regardless of the disaster and most likely before one strikes. So i'm bringing the question here for you guys to debate on. If the Titanic didn't hit the berg would it take a Titanic level disaster to improve the safety regulations or would they end up improving on their own before disaster strikes?

Historyman 14 · Nov 4, 2014

Something like Titanic happens, sadly.

Tallest Skil · Nov 4, 2014

Another ship, at another time, doing the exact same thing.

SactoMan101 · Nov 4, 2014

I've said it earlier: the RMS Titanic will be out of service within one year of inaugural trip because they discover serious structural cracking due to the poor quality of structural steel used in the construction of the ship. As such, the ship is laid up in drydock at the Harland and Wolff shipyard as they make a lot of modifications to fix and/or replace the cracked steel structural components.

Driftless · Nov 4, 2014

The sinking of the Lusitania? More people should have survived. That was the next largest liner to sink after the Titanic, correct?

Admiral Halsey · Nov 4, 2014

SactoMan101 said:
I've said it earlier: the RMS Titanic will be out of service within one year of inaugural trip because they discover serious structural cracking due to the poor quality of structural steel used in the construction of the ship. As such, the ship is laid up in drydock at the Harland and Wolff shipyard as they make a lot of modifications to fix and/or replace the cracked steel structural components.

You mean the steel that was the best quality they had at the time? The same steel the Olympic had who while yes experienced cracks in it they only happened in her later years?

Admiral Halsey · Nov 4, 2014

Driftless said:
The sinking of the Lusitania? More people should have survived. That was the next largest liner to sink after the Titanic, correct?

Honestly I don't think the sinking of the Lucy would change much. It was sunk during war after all.

wildviper121 · Nov 4, 2014

Admiral Halsey said:
Honestly I don't think the sinking of the Lucy would change much. It was sunk during war after all.

But imagine everything that comes to mind when someone mentions theTitanic, shifted... and with someone to blame.
Bound to have some negative effects on the Treaty of Versailles.

Admiral Halsey · Nov 4, 2014

wildviper121 said:
But imagine everything that comes to mind when someone mentions theTitanic, shifted... and with someone to blame.
Bound to have some negative effects on the Treaty of Versailles.

I was talking in regards to the effects on the safety regulations. The Lucy's sinking as far as I know didn't have an effect on the ToV in the OTL and still wouldn't.

wildviper121 · Nov 4, 2014

Admiral Halsey said:
I was talking in regards to the effects on the safety regulations. The Lucy's sinking as far as I know didn't have an effect on the ToV in the OTL and still wouldn't.

Oh my bad.

Dalekiller · Nov 4, 2014

Probably the Empress of Ireland sinking, happened in 1914

TFSmith121 · Nov 4, 2014

Empress of Ireland, presumably

Empress of Ireland, presumably

Best,

Admiral Halsey · Nov 4, 2014

Dalekiller said:
Probably the Empress of Ireland sinking, happened in 1914

TFSmith121 said:
Empress of Ireland, presumably

Best,

Like the Lucy the sinking happened so fast nothing could be done to save most people. Plus half the life-boats are unusable anyways. Also she'll be relegated to the back pages of the newspapers quickly due to WW1.

King of the Uzbeks · Nov 4, 2014

Something similar, but probobly with less loss of life.

TFSmith121 · Nov 4, 2014

Possibly, but having bodies floating ashore

Admiral Halsey said:
Like the Lucy the sinking happened so fast nothing could be done to save most people. Plus half the life-boats are unusable anyways. Also she'll be relegated to the back pages of the newspapers quickly due to WW1.

Possibly, but having bodies floating ashore on banks of the Saint Lawrence makes it a little hard to ignore, plus the sinking was in May, not August or later...

Kind of hard to ignore.

If so, sometime after the war, then, presumably in the early '20s...

Best,

MattII · Nov 4, 2014

Admiral Halsey said:
You mean the steel that was the best quality they had at the time? The same steel the Olympic had who while yes experienced cracks in it they only happened in her later years?

The coal-bunker fire caused some damage to the hull from what I'm told.

Admiral Halsey · Nov 5, 2014

MattII said:
The coal-bunker fire caused some damage to the hull from what I'm told.

Eh what damage it did was negligible. The ship had enough compartments open to the sea she was doomed anyways. At most she probably lasts another half-hour tops.

MattII · Nov 5, 2014

I don't mean it did much direct damage, but wasn't there a theory that the heat made the hull-plates brittle? I'm sure that would cause issues sooner than hull plates not subjected to that heat.

Admiral Halsey · Nov 5, 2014

MattII said:
I don't mean it did much direct damage, but wasn't there a theory that the heat made the hull-plates brittle? I'm sure that would cause issues sooner than hull plates not subjected to that heat.

The fire was only in one bunker so any plates made brittle only would effect said bunker. It wouldn't make the other hull-plates brittle at all.

MattII · Nov 5, 2014

It would still make those plates brittle, which would show up a few years before any of the others needed serious maintenance.