Talk:SS Richard Montgomery

Grr, making an article from web searches only is hard. There seems to be some confusion over whether it's the USS Richard Montgomery, the SS Richard Montgomery, or just the Richard Montgomery.

Um, anyone know about this stuff? :-) Evercat 21:09 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It is SS Richard montgomery. you will find links to lots of useful information, historical, as well as up to date, Including a chart of the area. alongside link to my my film script!

Ron angel The richard montgomery matter http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com Updated Feb 2008

---

Note: S.S. should be just S S when searching web otherewise results are limited. there are no dots in ships titles. eg: u.s.s.= U S S

Edit - POV

I have moved the following content, as it appears to be POV (If Foley did not attend the inquiy, this is presumably not the finding of the inquiry, so the source should be explict)

However, the ultimate reason for the disaster lies with the harbour master, who was confident that his choice of berth for the ship was safe, despite objections by the assistant harbour master who tried to have it relocated, but was countermanded by his superior. Foley, the assistant, insisted upon a written confirmation of these instructions, which was refused; with this Foley left the office.

After the disaster, Foley was posted to another department, which prevented his attendance at the inquiry, and so obscured the fact that the ship was incompetently parked by the harbour master, who then refused to consider otherwise.

Viv Hamilton 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

UK/US spellings

I have changed the spelling of harbour master back to the UK version, as in the context of this article it is referring to a UK job title. Given that the article is about a former US ship lying in UK waters, it is not clear whether US or UK spellings should be used in general, althouh the interest in this wreck is predominantly UK. Viv Hamilton 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't actually chamnge it Viv but I have now. Kevin McE 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - slightly flaky computer crashed mid-edit. I also failed to implement the above POV edit, which I have now done Viv Hamilton 08:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just blow it up?

If the ship is such a danger, why don't they just temporarily evacuate the town, blow it up, and repair whatever gets damaged? --96.255.87.77 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This may help explain:

In 1970 it was determined that if the wreck of the Montgomery were to explode it would throw a 1000-foot wide column of water and debris 10,000 feet in the air and generate a wave 16 feet high.

Not only could the explosion bring chaos and destruction to the nearby Sheerness, it could destroy the shipping port and, it has been suggested, cause a Tsunami along the River Thames. Which happens to run through the city of London. While the last ultrasound showed that there were no grounds for increased cause for alarm, a new survey of the munitions on board has been called for and a report in 2001 from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency concluded that "doing nothing was not an option for much longer. Hmm, it's only about 30 miles maybe I should move! Lynbarn (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

Hello everyone just a little note of caution the coordinates for the SS Richard Montgomery are incorrect, the coordinates display a house at the end of a housing estate. I believe the vessel lies at 51 28'04.62"N, 0 47'12.74"E.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy87 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The given co-ordinates don't appear to be all that inaccurate, and do point to the Thames Estuary in approximately the correct location, rather than on land as suggested. The UK Maritime and coastguard agency state that the wreck is designated under section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which means that there is a no-entry exclusion zone around the wreck. The wreck is clearly marked on the relevant Admiralty Charts. The exclusion zone is defined by the following co-ordinates:

• 51° 28’ 04” N 00° 47’ 12” E
• 51° 27’ 57” N 00° 47’ 22” E
• 51° 27’ 50” N 00° 47’ 11” E
• 51° 27’ 58” N 00° 47’ 01” E

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

2000 MCA report says sandbank (at 51°78'57"N 00°47'12"E). Referenced figure should be given. Pol098 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)