Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PuzzleheadedClothes4 t1_j0k2tge wrote

It was even worse than the title can portray—these were overworked factory employees and their families who were heading to a company picnic and they tipped over sideways shortly after boarding.

154

angroro t1_j0k51yy wrote

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.

127

ZirePhiinix t1_j0k5cqh wrote

The entire accident was crazy because the boat was docked. It is a combination of poor engineering and poor regulation that resulted in this accident.

220

ksdkjlf t1_j0k6b9h wrote

> a small steamer who

Contrary to popular belief, even though they are traditionally referred to as "she", boats are not, in fact, people. You want which

4

nonsense_bill t1_j0ktiax wrote

I didn't know either, thanks. That was an interesting read.

3

ThePhoenixBird2022 t1_j0kvebu wrote

So, by my maths (dodgy at best), more people died on the titanic, but crew weren't counted because they didn't buy a ticket?

1

MCBADDY69 t1_j0kxrjj wrote

Tl,dr If you're like me and wondered why you hadn't heard of the boat carrying the Titanic's lifeboats sinking---

They made a law requiring lifeboats for 75% of your passengers, and the extra weight of the boats sank this one. In Chicago.

40

[deleted] t1_j0kzmxp wrote

Could they not have...you know...used those lifeboats and survived?

5

jimmycurry01 t1_j0lav52 wrote

Footage of this disaster randomly turned up a few years ago. No one new it existed. A grad student found it while looking for footage from World War One.

30

accio_niffler t1_j0le0wr wrote

Learned about this recently from Ask a Mortician on YouTube. Highly recommend

9

Protomartyr1 t1_j0le0zk wrote

No, 844 passengers and 4 crew members died, compared to 1,490-1,635 (including crew) on the titanic The reason why the numbers on the titanic range so much is because of various record keeping errors and people traveling under aliases being counted twice

9

GoodyChaos t1_j0le8fz wrote

The Grey Lady has entered the chat.

−1

vemenium t1_j0lou87 wrote

“You always hear after a ship crashes that the only thing that survives are the lifeboats, so why don’t they just make the whole ship out of lifeboats?”

  • early 20th century hack comedians
1

Sir_DeChunk t1_j0m0bfq wrote

My numbers say 817 passengers, and 679 crew died, for a total of 1496 people on the Titanic. This counts the Guarantee group (people like Thomas Andrews) and the musicians as passengers.

1

stinkytinkles t1_j0mcqx1 wrote

Just a couple blocks from the site of the Iroquois Theater fire as well

2

ksdkjlf t1_j0mlp2s wrote

Good point! Language be weird like that.

Which is actually partially derived from who, going back to the Proto-Germanic terms equivalent to who + like. And in Middle English which was used where Modern English uses who, as in the King James version of the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, which art in heaven..."

And what and who are derived from the same root, which is how they both wound up having the same genitive form whose, rather than having whose and something like whats.

Personally I think it'd be fine if we got to the point where who & which became interchangeable or one replaced the other, as there's fundamentally no reason to distinguish between the two. Like, I've noticed a resurgence in people using whom — often incorrectly — and quite frankly we just need to let that word die, as there's no case where its job can't be done just as well by who.

But we're far from that point, and using who as OP did will still strike the overwhelming majority of users as an error (unlike using who for whom, which only the most ardent of pedants will truly wrinkle their noses at). So it's probably best avoided, and only used when referring to people and not objects.

1

Seraph062 t1_j0mmos1 wrote

Calling the Eastland "sunk" might be a bit of a stretch. The ship rolled onto its side and then settled into the mud, but a lot (most?) of the ship was still above water.

9

herbw t1_j0mrsrh wrote

same bad management then.

1

herbw t1_j0ms0tc wrote

same as titanic: upper rich decks survived, lower decks drowned.

once again proving that if we tell the truth on TIL, we get downvoted. That tells us more about the Reddit than the sciences.

Or as Twain stated, if you want to stay out of trouble in your lifetime,, NEVER state the whole truth in public.

AKA, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true. A big logical point persons whose decisions are amygdaloid and crotch centered, usually fail in life.

No laschiari que il testa piccolo domini la testa grande....

PS: The evile bots are still busy here.

−3

herbw t1_j0msl4b wrote

Titanic was a far larger passenger ship, so course there were more losses on the Titanic.

If a buss crashes there are often way more casualties, than if a single car crashes.

These statistical facts are muy mysterioso to many.

0

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.

5

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?

3

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.

5

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.

2