A while ago I got into a discussion on a blog with someone who thought this was evidence of psi. The blog has gone, but google's cache has my last response to the debate, which I'll cut and paste here:
(the "you" in the text obviously refers to the blogger)
edited to add: the stuff about the Great Eastern may seem a bit weird. I was trying to establish whether the Titanic was such an incredible leap forward in technology as my debater made out. So I've put that bit in italics, and if anyone wants to skip that bit, they can.
...
So, I did a little searching, and come up with a few observations.
What is interesting is that there appear to be two versions of Robertson's short story. The 1899 version, and a second published in 1912 (one year after the Titanic sank with a new title "The Wreck of the Titan"). I've seen a table comparing the two, and the only difference seems to be the weight of the Titan (increased from 45,000 tons to 70,000 tons) and an increase in horse power (from 40,000 to 75,000) and both adjustments rendered the prediction less accurate.
I have to disagree with your opinion that the Titanic was far more advanced than any other ship (for a start she had a sister ship, the Olympic). I found this quote of snopes.com regarding claims about the Titanic's unsinkablility: "In 1858 the liner Great Eastern was launched, a ship that was an even greater leap in size and technology for her time than the Titanic was in 1912. She was, in the words of Paul Heyer, "not simply ahead of her time, or even at the leading edge, as was the Titanic, but completely outside it." The Great Eastern was five times larger than any previous ship, and she would not be matched in size (either tonnage or length) for over forty years."
The ocean liner Great Eastern, designed by Isimbard Kingdom Brunel, was launched in 1858. It was 689 feet long and twice as long as its closest rival. It could carry 4,000 passengers, for those in first class in a great deal of luxury. It wasn't until 1899 that a longer ship was built, and it was still the longest ship when "Futility" was first published. In 1863 she collided with a rock in an accident similar to one that befell the Titanic, but didn't sink due to having a double hull.
The Great Eastern weighed only 18,915 tons compared to Titan's original 45,000 and the Titanic's 66,000 (although a heavier ship than the Great Eastern wouldn't be launched until 1907). And its horse power was a puny 1,600 alongside Titan's 40,000 and the Titanic's 46,000 (in fact, its low power meant it was never profitable).
On the Titanic there were 1,316 passengers and 913 crew, of which 713 survived (these figures are debateable, with a leeway of about a dozen either way, since the passenger list was lost). On the Titan there were 2,000 passengers (no figures about the crew that I can find). In the story a quick glance doesn't tell me anything about survivors (one web site lists it as 13).
The issue of the speeds being the same doesn't seem such a coincidence. Ocean liners from before the publication of Futility could make 22 knots and in their desire to break the transatlantic record they'd go at full speed, even in bad weather.
The month coincidence is less surprising when icebergs are more prevalent in the Atlantic shipping routes in April, May and June. The fact that they were both damaged on the starboard side is 50/50. The fact that the damage was towards the front is not a prediction at all considering the lack of ocean liners crossing the Atlantic backwards.
The big jump the Titan made is really in terms of horse power, from what I can see. At the time of the writing of Futility the most powerful ships had a horse power of 18,500 (City of Paris) and 28,000 (Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse)
The coincidence of the Titan and Titanic being made in the same county is fairly obvious since more than half of large ocean going liners of the time were made in Britain, and in 1897 (one year before the release of Futility) the German ship Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse was launched causing shock in British circles that another nation had overtaken their technological endeavours.
The fact that both ships had three propellers is not surprising since large ships in Robertson's time had two propeller. The figure of watertight bulkheads is not surprising either, since the Great Eastern had 10 or 15 (depending on what source you look at).
The lack of lifeboats seems to be a comment on contemporary attitudes to safety. In the online article "The Titanic Disaster: An Enduring Example of Money Management vs. Risk Management" Roy Brander writes:
"The committee of the British Board of Trade that made the regulations on life-boats was dominated by shipbuilders. They proved very able to convince themselves that boats for every person were not necessary. Thus the regulations of the time required only that a ship of Titanic's size carry boats sufficient for 962, though she could potentially carry over 3500 passengers and crew.
White Star's General Manager Harold Sanderson pointed out that the North Atlantic was so stormy that boats could not be lowered safely 95% of the time, and even once down, the passengers would be subject to additional dangers on the tossing sea."
From what I can gather, the Titan is an extrapolation of the way that shipbuilding was going at the time of writing. The coincidences listed in the original table are either pretty predictable, not really that accurate, or not even in the story (ie, the top speed, and also the thing about too many water-tight compartments being flooded which I still can't find). Plus, of course, are the differences and details which are not in the story. To expect a short story to go into such detail is unfair, but it's worth bearing them in mind.
