This time an uber rich tycoon from Australia has announced he has contracted with a Chinese shipyard to build a replica of the Titanic, but with all modern machinery and navigation aids. It wasn't clear in the report about how much of the ships outward appearance will resemble the original ship. It said the ship will be ready to sail in late 2016.

I think maybe it will be four years too late to attract a big following.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I'd sail on it, but only after it completed it's 1st transatlantic voyage.

---

Actually the most recent of the documentaries concerning the Titanic ended up praising Andrews for the excellence of his design. Considering that in 1912 big steamships were only a couple of decades old, the Titanic was very well constructed. The great loss of life was attributed to, the low number of lifeboats, the lack of 24hr. radio monitoring by all ships at sea and the lack of concern by the Captain over the presence of icebergs.

They noted that in their tests the rivets did not fail in mass as was suggested by some and that the overall structure of the ship exceeded the standards of the time. It was also noted that unlike most all other ship sinkings the Titanic remained upright with no list and that all the lifeboats were launched from both sides of the ship. Also she stayed afloat almost an hour longer than Andrews initially estimated.

The replica, if it actually gets built, will have sailed quite a way before it even gets to Liverpool.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Actually, trying to turn the ship at the last minute caused the iceberg to rip a long gash in the side which flooded too many of her compartments. The pumps were inadequate to keep her afloat. I don't think that she had an icebreaker bow but if she steamed straight ahead she might have survived the impact, only flooding a front compartment or two.

Actually, trying to turn the ship at the last minute caused the iceberg to rip a long gash in the side which flooded too many of her compartments. The pumps were inadequate to keep her afloat. I don't think that she had an icebreaker bow but if she steamed straight ahead she might have survived the impact, only flooding a front compartment or two.

I have seen speculation for years that had they slammed into the iceberg head on a lot of people would have had some nasty injuries from the sudden stop but like you wrote the ship most likely would not have sunk or at least could have been kept afloat long enough for help to have arrived. Somebody on one of the documentaries calculated that had it been immediately determined that the Titanic was sinking all of the life preservers could have been collected and locked into the forward compartments keeping enough bouyancy to keep her afloat several hours longer.

Ifs and buts enough to fill a book but you can't change history.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Had the Costa Concordia gone straight ahead nothing would have happened. But her captain steered to right and the stern went left, hitting the rocks. But a captain should know how a ship behaves.
Tullio

---

Had the Costa Concordia gone straight ahead nothing would have happened. But her captain steered to right and the stern went left, hitting the rocks. But a captain should know how a ship behaves.
Tullio

Is the chart that accurate? Is the GPS that accurate? If they were I bet they would have been 500 yards father off shore in the first place.

Even if he had missed the rock he still hazarded the vessel and belongs in prison.

---

My theory is that this time he had low tide and a full load of fuel. Also the 60 mile per hour gale would have caused high waves which could have subtracted even a few dozen more feet when the ship was in the trough.

The Edmund Fitzgerald probably hit bottom in the Great Lakes with a full load of ore and 40 foot waves along with shallow water to begin with. Ed Fitzgerald was the head of Nortel at world headquarters right here in Nashville Tennessee.

My theory is that this time he had low tide and a full load of fuel. Also the 60 mile per hour gale would have caused high waves which could have subtracted even a few dozen more feet when the ship was in the trough.

That reminds me of a similar scenario where the QEII luxury passenger liner ripped open a long gash in her underside on a boulder in shallows between two picturesque islands. In that case, her double hull saved her from too much flooding.

For that example, the charts suggested there should have been enough depth. However, the captain was behind schedule and so raced through at high knots. At such a high speed, large vessels create their own 'hollow' in the sea due to the even higher speed rush of water being forced past them. That in turn causes their effective draught to be deeper. There's even a comment for this on Wikipedia: Squat.

I wonder how many captains are aware of the numbers for that rather than just the loading draught figure?


But in any case, why make such excuses?

The glib comments I've picked up suggest lax recklessness compounded by blindness due to not wearing his glasses! Possibly also add distraction due to beautiful female on the bridge.

But also... Where were the first officers to check and correct such blindness?


All very silly and costly.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)