angroro t1_j0k51yy wrote
Reply to comment by PuzzleheadedClothes4 in TIL about the sinking of the S.S. Eastland, a small steamer who, in the aftermath of the Titanic disaster, was filled with so many lifeboats that it became unstable and eventually sank, leading to the deaths of 844 people. by Sebastianlim
It wasn't just the life boats that caused this either. It had a solid cement deck which left her top heavy and was known for having issues staying level in the water. It was never built to be a passenger ship and couldn't bear the load of the near 1000 guests at the upper levels. Many had commented on the ship being dangerous and a warning had been issued to the captain that she was lurching before all of the passengers had even boarded. He chose to ignore the warning. He also argued that rescuers couldn't cut into the hull to save trapped passengers, though I can't remember his reasoning.
The whole situation was a horrific yet avoidable tragedy.
PuzzleheadedClothes4 t1_j0k6g9x wrote
Yes! I am wondering if you watched the same video I did—it was helpful in understanding the magnitude of this.
angroro t1_j0k6ohs wrote
I have watched it! I knew a bit before seeing the video, but the additional details from AAM were sobering.
thisusedyet t1_j0k9baw wrote
Saw the title, was going to come in with the Palatine 'Ironic' picture, but turns out it was just a badly designed ship with a shitty captain.
angroro t1_j0n8dae wrote
She wasn't poorly designed for what she was intended for. She was a cargo ship I believe. It was the modifications to make her a passenger ship and a defective ballast system. The captain had managed her well despite her issues for many years. It was a combination of over confidence and I'm assuming grief on the captain's part. He refused to leave her as she rolled over and it was honestly a battle to remove him from her hull.
She was however the wrong ship for the job. That may boil down to just pure greed.
thisusedyet t1_j0ncre7 wrote
Obvious disclaimer of I am not a shipwright, but:
A concrete deck high up on the ship would make it incredibly susceptible to overturning, what would be the benefit of that to counterbalance the obvious risk to the ship?
angroro t1_j0njpdn wrote
She should never have had concrete poured onto the deck during conversion to a passenger ship. It really just gave the Eastland a flatter, more usable deck for people. The only benefit was not having to build a whole new ship and making money.
herbw t1_j0qqpd2 wrote
Most disasters ARE, in retrospect, disasters. But it often takes empirical events to prove that. Like amanita poisoning. Then the warnings are believed, and no one builds more ships with concrete decks....
Test, test, test. Confirm, confirm, confirm. That always sorts the wheat from the chaff.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments