Titanic II : Really Going to be Built!

[W_L]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/travel/titanic-2-to-sail/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

An Australian billionaire came up with the idea.

 

Sorry, but I have to laugh at this article. There are a lot of things that makes me squeamish about boarding the ship.

 

 

At a Tuesday press event in New York, Australian billionaire Clive Palmer, chairman of Blue Star Line shipping company, unveiled blueprints for his company's planned Titanic II. It's an exact replica of the haunted 1912 cruise liner that ... well, you've seen the movie.

 

That scares you

 

 

Palmer claims Titanic II will be the safest cruise ship in the world when it sets sail in 2016 from Southampton, England, bound for New York, following the ill-fated Titanic's original planned route.

 

Sounds familiar

 

 

Palmer has commissioned a Chinese shipyard to build the replica.

 

No offense to my people, but Chinese ship construction is very new and not at all on the top tier of safety. Probably labor costs are low.

 

Overall, I am not sure if this idea is really good or just a publicity stunt.

[layla]

ummm why can't i help but feel like we've seen the ending to this already, the band plays while the ship goes down...again

[Rilbur]

ummm why can't i help but feel like we've seen the ending to this already, the band plays while the ship goes down...again

 

The Titanic was a disaster because of arrogance, not because of bad design.  If they hadn't run the ship so fast they couldn't avoid iceburgs...  if they'd had enough lifeboats for all the passengers... Hell, if they hadn't panicked they'd have gotten many more out alive, for crying out loud!

 

The Titanic's sister ships didn't sink thanks to bad design.  One lived out it's lifespan and was retired, the other was sunk during world war 1 by hostile action.

[Yettie One]

I don't get why he's got to build an exact replica and sail the exact route. I dunno but that kind of smacks of bad taste. Talk about rubbing it in!

 

I don't think it'd matter how well the thing was designed or equipped. If a ship is going to go down, it's going to go down. The Costa Concordia proved that. Enough war ships sank in a variety of sea wars with fully drilled crews trained in evacuation procedures  without enough men being able to get to safety. I think a lot depends on training and a crews willingness to admit that the ship/vessel is in trouble in enough time to abandon ship. As long as the ship don't hit something it should be fine.

[Myr]

The Titanic was a disaster because of arrogance, not because of bad design.  If they hadn't run the ship so fast they couldn't avoid iceburgs...  if they'd had enough lifeboats for all the passengers... Hell, if they hadn't panicked they'd have gotten many more out alive, for crying out loud!

 

The Titanic's sister ships didn't sink thanks to bad design.  One lived out it's lifespan and was retired, the other was sunk during world war 1 by hostile action.

Actually, After the Titanic sunk, the Olympic  wasbrought back to dry dock and had a second hull put on them. (see Refit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic)

Also major design flaw of Titanic... rudder was too small.  Which, besides the Titanic disaster, also was a contributing factor to the Olympic collision with the HMS Hawke.  The small rudder cause the turning radius of the ship to be very poor.  If Titanic turned 10 seconds faster or 10 seconds slower, she probably would have stayed a float.

[Zombie]

The whole thing seems in very bad taste. I can see the cruise line stopping the ship at the spot Titanic hit the 'berg and offering extra cost night time "excursions" in "our luxuriously appointed heated lifeboats fitted with 5.1 Stereo Surround Sound so you can experience the horror and hear the screams of drowning passengers while you look back at the fully lit ship and imagine it plunging to its doom!!", maybe with a few paid actors splashing around in the sea trying to clamber on board the lifeboats so passengers can enjoy the thrill of shoving them back in the sea ...

[Rilbur]

Actually, After the Titanic sunk, the Olympic  wasbrought back to dry dock and had a second hull put on them. (see Refit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic)

Also major design flaw of Titanic... rudder was too small.  Which, besides the Titanic disaster, also was a contributing factor to the Olympic collision with the HMS Hawke.  The small rudder cause the turning radius of the ship to be very poor.  If Titanic turned 10 seconds faster or 10 seconds slower, she probably would have stayed a float.

This I did not know.  That said, the basic point -- if they'd been running at a safer speed, rather than rushing to get there 'on time' -- they probably would have been able to turn quickly enough.

[Myr]

It would probably have been helpful to not have ignored the repeated warnings of heavy iceberg flow too...

[Cyhort]

The whole thing seems in very bad taste. I can see the cruise line stopping the ship at the spot Titanic hit the 'berg and offering extra cost night time "excursions" in "our luxuriously appointed heated lifeboats fitted with 5.1 Stereo Surround Sound so you can experience the horror and hear the screams of drowning passengers while you look back at the fully lit ship and imagine it plunging to its doom!!", maybe with a few paid actors splashing around in the sea trying to clamber on board the lifeboats so passengers can enjoy the thrill of shoving them back in the sea ...

 

I would pay out the ass to do that if that was actually a thing. Or even better, you can get on a floating piece of wood that's easily big enough for two people then have an actor who pretends to freeze to death right in front of you because he "can't get on". Yeah, still not over that James Cameron.....

[methodwriter85]

I want costumed intrepretors pretending to be Titanic passengers, like what they're doing at the Franklin institute.

 

 

 

I wonder how many people they're going to have to stop from going to the bow and yelling, "I'm king of the world!" or "I'm flying, Jack."

Edited February 28, 2013 by methodwriter85

[Welshdude]

I'd also agree that it seems in bad taste.  As interesting as this may be and look if/when built, it just seems to be a waste of money.  The subject of Titanic as always been surrounded by fascination and question but building an exact replica of a ship that sank just doesn't sit right.  I'll guess we'll just have to wait and see:)

[W_L]

"Don't let go cyhort!"

 

Well if they want to replicate the original hit list of rich/famous for the maiden voyage: James Cameron will definitely be invited.

 

I have had only one crush on a girl in my life, it was Kate winslett and Leo Dicaprio probably could use a cruise down record movie lane

 

I love the history of the Titanic and its humanity from the arrogance of Bruce Ismay the Ceo of white Atari lines to the heroism of second officer who organized one of the few rescues after the sinking with his small lifeboat. Curious enough, he would later participate in the dunkirk evacuation.

 

Despite all that humanity, I can't really agree to see a replica of the same ship on the same route. It feels like hubris that human beings will again fall to nature.

[Y_B]

I'm assuming he'll insist that the ship not carry enough lifeboats for everybody as well?

 

I mean if you're gonna replicate something, gotta do it right, right?

[Zombie]

... and cheapskate rivets that pop like bubblegum when the replica ship hits the replica iceberg ...

[hh5]

sounds like this is the ship that missed the 100th anniversary of the sinking of titantic I

at the time it was having hard times getting funding and needed to bring its designs to current code

 

the cost outweighed from doing it ... so they found a new investor??

 

the Britannic which was made into a hospital ship was either torpedoed or had struck a mine at its bow

by their theory of the time ... the ship should not have sunk because the damage was containable

unlike titanic's demise

(from a documentary) one of the reasons why it sank was because of its double hull ...

the damage allowed water to flood thru the length of the ship between the inner n outer hulls

they didn't implement fixed compartments into the double hull like they had in their unsinkable design

it could have saved the ship if only had they tested their deigns on their models

this is discounting the open port holes or the doors that failed to close 

its bad design because the owner was out to make money ... not design for passenger safety

 

he Titanic's sister ships didn't sink thanks to bad design.  One lived out it's lifespan and was retired, the other was sunk during world war 1 by hostile action.

 

I think its grand to have the titanic back one day ... gosh all the modern technology that will replace the old design

 

lets hope that it won't be remembered like in Titanic 2 the movie ... nature found another way to sink this ship

 

Edited March 2, 2013 by hh5

[hh5]

not just safer speeds but had they practiced all the safety drills among its crew 

they know what was at stake to save the passengers  (only the design engineers knew it)

they wouldn't be so shocked in OMG and work from fear and inexperience

they complied with old dated requirements

the marketing of the unsinkable ship created an arrogance amongst the crew, the captain, the company, the world

something like locked up binoculars in the cabinet shouldn't stop them from breaking into the cabinent

if thats the equipment they need to search for icebergs

 

This I did not know.  That said, the basic point -- if they'd been running at a safer speed, rather than rushing to get there 'on time' -- they probably would have been able to turn quickly enough.

 

Yeah I wonder if the sister ships still had a smaller rudder?

 

The new ship would have the benefits of steerable thrusters... would a big rudder still be needed??

 

gosh .... this announcement ... its still sounds like their still trying to sell us whats safe and grand about it

so with punlic feed back they know how much business they will get from the industry

 

but if carnival keeps on having serious problems with their ships ... people will think worst of titanic 2

Edited March 2, 2013 by hh5

[C J]

The only reason to do this is to make a name for himself, and charge enormous amounts for cruising on a replica Titanic.  I suppose everything from the dinnerware to the carpets will be like the original.  People are enamored with the entire Titanic story.  It seems tragedy is one of the most popular subjects for movies.  I don't think I want to go along on their trip through time, but I would definitely love to see this ship inside and out. 

[hh5]

lets say it doesn't sink in its first three years ...would you take a voyage then??

rather than think of it as a living museum piece?

lol, the queen mary is sort of a sample of the era of the design

 

The only reason to do this is to make a name for himself, and charge enormous amounts for cruising on a replica Titanic.  I suppose everything from the dinnerware to the carpets will be like the original.  People are enamored with the entire Titanic story.  It seems tragedy is one of the most popular subjects for movies.  I don't think I want to go along on their trip through time, but I would definitely love to see this ship inside and out. 

[C J]

lets say it doesn't sink in its first three years ...would you take a voyage then??

rather than think of it as a living museum piece?

lol, the queen mary is sort of a sample of the era of the design

It's possible i would go, if they didn't take the same route as the original.   I'm not very interested in the idea of a cruise in general given the bad luck cruise ships seem to have had lately.  I love adventures, but I don't care much for taking risks that have a high likelihood of loss of life if something goes wrong.  There are plenty of exciting things to do that have a low risk of losing my life.  Who knows, this ship might turn out to be the safest one ever built.  I'm going to be watching this thing because it's so unusual.

[hh5]

JACK 2

lol

 

[JamesSavik]

Titanic was a poor design to start with and rushed through construction. Building her as an exact replica would be exceptionally foolish.

 

If they are going to spend that kind of money, the smart thing to do is to use modern methods and do the replica where the passengers are.

 

An exact replica would have poor steel, bad watertight compartmentalization, coal fired boilers, steerage accommodations and not nearly enough lifeboats.

 

Fix the problems with the design. Use diesel turbine engines instead of coal. Have modern safety systems and communications.

 

The original Titanic was a very shiny POS from an engineering standpoint.

[Rilbur]

Titanic was a poor design to start with and rushed through construction. Building her as an exact replica would be exceptionally foolish.

 

If they are going to spend that kind of money, the smart thing to do is to use modern methods and do the replica where the passengers are.

 

An exact replica would have poor steel, bad watertight compartmentalization, coal fired boilers, steerage accommodations and not nearly enough lifeboats.

 

Fix the problems with the design. Use diesel turbine engines instead of coal. Have modern safety systems and communications.

 

The original Titanic was a very shiny POS from an engineering standpoint.

Now now now James, repressing all that anger isn't healthy.  Just let it alllll out.

 

That said, don't forget that some of those problems have more to do with the technology of the day.  Calling is a 'POS' is only true by modern standards.

[layla]

Actually, from the documetaries i have watched with my son, it was a POS even by the standards of the times, they had better grade steel, but it was more cost effective to use the lesser grade, which, once cold, was even more brittle than the next grade up. Considering the type of water conditons they would be going through, that was a poor choice right there, plus, the deviders between the watertight bulkheads were not designed to go floor to ceiling, they stopped part of the way up, which allowed water to flow over the tops filling more compartments than could safely be filled to keep the ship afloat. I know there were more flaws to it as well, so yeah, following the original designs is the makings of another sinking ship.

[hh5]

ICEBURG RIGHT AHEAD

 

Edited March 20, 2013 by hh5

[ToddYoung]