There is a formula for determining “flank speed”. Sorry I do not remember it but the relationship between the hull length and with are the major variables.
For a displacement hull, the formula for hull speed (essentially, “flank speed”) is:
Speed in Kts = 1.3 times the square root of the waterline length in feet.
For instance, a hull length of 49 feet results in a hull speed of 9.1 kts. Any power used that is above the amount necessary for this speed is essentially wasted. And even getting up to the hull speed takes a lot of power. For example, a WW1 four-stacker destroyer could do 26 knots at half power, but only 32 kts at full power.
Have you got a cite for this? I can’t see this mentioned in the wiki article. Other sites seem to suggest dead slow or half speed.
This book:
You may be right about the speed; I don’t have my copy of the book handy. But he did order that they proceed for several minutes, which only made the situation worse by driving water into the hull.
My impression is that it was not dead slow, though. It would have taken some time for them to accelerate back to 24 knots in any case.
I see.
In the US Senate investigation, however, Senator Wm. Smith determined that another boiler was indeed brought on line that night. IIRC, he traveled to New York and boarded the Olympic where he interviewed a crewman who was on duty on board the Titanic the night of 14–15 April.
This is also mentioned in Wyn Craig’s book.
Another boiler may have been brought on line, but the Captain did not order it.
Apparently, it has been now:
Number Six, right at the top of the countdown.
Also discussed in Wyn Craig’s book, a large portion of which is in fact a biography of the senator.
Reported
Bumped.
There are further delays in building Titanic II: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/travel/titanic-ii-feat/index.html. By now I doubt it will ever happen - 2012 would’ve been the year to make money on it, if ever.
I remember seeing a test done with a model. The Titanic sank an hour earlier than it did in real life, having lost power about forty five minutes beforehand. Had Smith left the watertight doors open, it wouldn’t have been a tragedy, it would have been a holocaust.
The binoculars:
Were not for spotting icebergs on such a night, and it is generally accepted that scanning with the eyes was proper.
Binoculars were great for fully identifying things that were already spotted
Kinda doubt that. 7X50 binoculars are specifically designed as “night glasses” and as such definitely give better night vision than the naked eye.
Stephen Colbert mentioned the Titanic replica on his show last night, noting that it was delayed but that by then there wouldn’t be any icebergs (due to global warming, presumably).
:dubious: Have you got a cite for that?
My sight is my cite. 
Whether they were “specifically” designed as such, 7X50 binoculars have a noticeably increased light-gathering ability. It is quite striking how much brighter things are at night when you look through them.
Speaking of which, Titanic and similar ships of the day should have had “headlights”. The power was available, the tech was available. Locomotives have them, and they have even less ability to swerve out of the way of things in their path. Why the blindness, as it were, to shining a light ahead in ships?
I’ve cited references; I’ve not invoked my opinion.
I’ve read time and time again about the practices used by those on lookout in that era, and it was naked eye scanning. It was not expected that they’d use the binoculars (per various sources, some of which have been cited).
If you cite something, please make it specific to the Titanic and practices of peer ships at the time.
.
The Titanic lookouts were indeed supposed to have binoculars: Key that could have saved the Titanic
IIRC the California had an iceberg some many miles long in front of her. That’s why she stopped.
As someone else mentioned the Titanic’s radio operator barked at the California’s radio operator for bugging him so yeah…they were done talking.
Also, not that it matters when it comes to rendering aid, but I think the California’s captain did not identify the Titanic as the Titanic. He thought it was a much smaller ship. There is speculation there was atype of mirage occurring* at sea at that time. Indeed the Titanic was trying desperately to signal the California with its signal light but despite the fact the California’s captain was watching (as were others) they did not see the signal again likely due to the unusual mirage that was occurring.
In short, he had little reason to think something was amiss.