Talk:MS Herald of Free Enterprise

Can somebody give a source for the recently added comment about the stern doors? PatGallacher 08:44, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

A mention might be made of the crew member responsible for the doors was asleep on duty.

True that the man whose job it was to supervise closing the doors slept through his shift, however really it is more complex than that. Through the entire process of loading vehicles, etc, none of the other crew, nor the man's supervisor, realised he wasn't at his post. When the bell went for the ship to leave port, the various crew members left the car deck for their post to be taken for leaving port, leaving the unattended doors open, with the sleeping man's absense not noted by anyone. The captain left port unable to check if the doors were closed. Normally the ship could have sailed with the doors open, one of the sister ships accidentally crossed the channel in this mode before, but this time the extra ballast caused the capsize. Asa01 01:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The things you mentioned are compounding factors, not complications, it is true that the bosun responsible was asleep G0ggy 12:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the captain not being able to check was that the standing orders suggested that he could assume that the ship was ready for sea unless he was told otherwise. JohnGray 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The general principle of health + safety is that a relatively commonplace incident, like someone falling asleep -or even being taken seriously ill, should not lead to disaster. The court puts the lion's share of the blame on First officer Leslie Sabel -though it pointed out that management expected him to be in 2 places at once. Stanley was not punished by the court. I'll change the article -with references. JRPG (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember at the time (and I'm showing my age here) that the papers compared this tragedy to the movie The Poseidon Adventure, not only because it involved a passenger ship capsizing but because heroic stories surfaced of survivors helping each other to escape (apparently one man turned himself into a "human bridge" so others could climb to safety). Should we put this in, or would it be too lurid? I don't unfortunately have a source for this (other than my memory of the time). Dave-ros 11:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the man's name was Andrew Parker and he got an award in the Queen's Honours: article by a novelist writing about the subject of maritime disasters Dave-ros 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to tidy the page into more readable sections - previously it was a large block of text which didn't make it easy to read. Feel free to alter it if you feel improvements can be made - just thought it was better than nothing! Matt

Just reading through the article, there's good information here but I think some references are needed, especially now that there's a named individual listed as responsible for the doors being left open. Can someone dig up a copy of the offical report into the disaster to support this? We also seem to have a lot of duplication of the same facts though that's not a problem.

I have a few useful sources in the form of books from Ferry Publications, so I'm willing to have a go at re-writing the section about the ship (her design, launch date, etc) unless anyone has any objections? The Pride class ships were pretty revolutionary in ferry terms so we shouldn't just be covering the disaster. WelshMatt 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The official investigation reports can be found at http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/herald_of_free_enterprise/herald_of_free_enterprise_report.cfm 80.126.241.196 16:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and some of the current text rather oversimplifies or omits factors that are quite carefully described in the report. I will endeavour to correct some of these. Of particular interest is that the ferries were overloaded on several occasions - this meant that the stability rules that were supposed to apply were not being adherted to. JohnGray 16:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks imagery, for such an important event in modern peacetime maritime history there should be at minimum an image of the Herald of Free Enterprise in the state where she lay on her side in the English Channel, would also be good to have one where she is upright sailing prior to the disaster so that people can see what this vessel and the rest of its class looks like. I have been unable to find anything that fits within wikipedias image uploading guidelines, so if anybody knows of something that would be cool. JonEastham 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pleased to see someone bringing this under the Ships and Shipwreck categories - I'm contemplating some copyediting unless anyone has major objections? As I said before, we seem to have some duplication. If I model a section on the ship on the Wikiproject Ships template then the disaster on the Wikiproject Shipwrecks template would that be generally acceptable?

I might also have a go at writing an article on the "Spirit of Free Enterprise" - this was the lead ship of the three so a lot of the technical data could go there. WelshMatt 13:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm from the Shipwrecks Project, and I'm sure I speak for the whole project when I say that, from our point of view, and probably WikiProject Ships too, that really would be brilliant. I'm unsure if we have an oficial article template posted - in fact I'm pretty sure we don't - but you can follow the general style used on R.P. Resor (ship) and intended to be used on Globe Star (ship) for guidance if you wish. If you can think of a better way, then please, please, please use it here and let us know on the project talk page! I'll post a quick heads up on our talk page to let the project know of the work you intend to cary out on this article. Blood red sandman 18:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've now had a go. Please be aware that this is my first article, so if I've removed anything important (that isn't elsewhere in the article) feel free to replace it. I've tried to organise the data in a more logical way, with a brief introduction, followed by the events leading up to the sinking, followed by the inquiry and its conclusions. I've also tried to rationalise the duplicated sections - the part about ballast water was in both the disaster and the inquiry sections for example.

Now, I know we need something here on the free surface effect, and it might be good to have a bit in the introduction about the social impact - as I understand it this was one of the first accidents to lead to calls for a corporate manslaughter law. Unfortunately I have a limited understanding of these parts so some assistance would be needed there WelshMatt 13:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain the numbers in brackets that I've sprinkled around the article, these are where I feel references are needed. I've found two so far but would welcome anyone managing to find more - in fact it would be a big help if anyone else could help fill in the gaps and tidy up the referencing. WelshMatt 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just put a {{fact}} tag in each position? Looks better. -- Necrothesp 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah - was wondering how those worked! Will change it now. Thanks for the help! WelshMatt 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article states 193 people lost their lives, but the official investigation report states that 188 people (150 passengers and 38 crew) died. Can we clarify which figure is correct? G0ggy 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As it stands right now, this page is subordinated to M, because of the backslash in the title. I'm going to remove it to fix this problem. Just posting here to let anyone who watches this page know why. Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to claim this is the Worst Peacetime Sinking of a British Ship - Titanic was registered in Liverpool and that was about 1500 deaths, as an obvious example. I would say it could possibly be worst in British Waters - but this was just off the Belgian coast, nullifying that too. Is it either untrue, or just very badly worded? --84.13.16.216 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the words have changed since you made this comment because they seem both clear and correct to me. The current words are "This was the worst maritime disaster involving a British registered ship in peacetime since the sinking of the Iolaire in 1919" - Titanic sank in 1912 of course. --Antrac (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording still refers to the Titanic. HMS Iolaire was a military vessel, so maybe the wording should still refer to the Titanic but specify "civilian" vessel. Over to the experts. --Wikiain (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This ship was seen at the end of the Hungarian film "Eszkimó asszony fázik" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085512/ ), can seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK45CQ4Idog It can be intresting and worth to add the article. hu:Szerkesztő:Oszi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.208.79 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Within the article the time sequence is unclear. I had to read the sister article in French to understand that although the ship left at 19:08 (maybe 19:05) continental time, it capsized after a few minutes (two, three, four), but it took as long as 19:26 for the alarm to be raised and received. Leaving at 6:05pm (UK time) and then capsizing 6:28pm cannot be right. I am tempted to say capsize at 6:08pm. Please check someone else independently. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Edited the times, as found on fr and nl wikipedia. A few things are unclear to me: scheduled departure 19:08, but apparently the vessel left slightly early. Alarm by another vessel with quite a few minutes delay. Please check someone else independently. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The court report, page 1, para 2, gives sailing at 18:05, passing mole at 18:24 and capsize 4 minutes later (UK times). Scillystuff (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have edited the article.

One thing: passing mole at 18:24 and capsizing at 18:24+4, how does this fit with the alarm being raised at 18:26. Is it plausible speculation that the listing at 18:24+90seconds was already enough for the third vessel to raise the alarm? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference 11 seems to point to an unrelated court case about conjoined twins. Don't know what the original should have been. 86.6.236.155 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks for pointing it out. The edit which made it was 30th November 2008. I'll revert it and another uncited edit made at the same time shortly. JRPG (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the spurious reference to conjoined twins -and a much more plausible story about someone being forceably removed for obstructing an emergency exit made by the same editor at the same time. If true, and fully cited it can be restored but it is simply a detail in a horrific event. JRPG (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference 7 doesn't work. Can anybody who knows the sources on this fix it? --Wikiain (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just heard the Nicholas Ridley quote (although he is the pilot of the Bill, he has not got his bow doors open) on BBC Radio 4's 'THe Reunion' and am sure he said 'front doors' and not 'bow doors'. Having looked at the reference (16), it does not appear to include the Ridley quote, and instead is a section of PMQs that mentions TT's share price being impacted by necessary modifications. Perhaps someone could source the accurate quote and change it? curium99 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the deadliest maritime disaster involving a British ship in peacetime since the sinking of the Iolaire in 1919.

¿Has there been a worse one since this? The way it is written implies there was, it would be helpful to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.14.230 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The implication is that to find a "peacetime" deadlier disaster you would have to go back to the Iolaire. Actually I think this is a bit artificial. The Iolaire was technically a warship, and the date of its sinking, 1 January 1919, was not really "peacetime" in the true sense of the term. It was eight weeks into an armistice that would not be concluded until a peace treaty six months later. Many early historians refer to the 1914-1919 War. I would scrub the sentence and replace it with "This was the deadliest maritime disaster involving a British ship in peacetime since the sinking of the Empress of Ireland in 1914. RodCrosby (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know where this information comes from? If there is a reliable source, it might be worth adding to the article.

pgr94 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)