Titanic II - Expected Completion in 2016
- Thread starter 62caddy
- Start date
In this case, even a pair binoculars would've made all the difference. (They had gone missing in Southhampton).
Unless someone had listened to Tesla, who had the idea in the same era as Titanic's sinking, IIRC.
Not interested in fully functional steering, want to do the unthinkable, and hit the berg dead on - don't need totally accurate steering for that. Would have smashed a bit of crockery, and messed up the bow quite a lot - but that's all.
I agree, a strong possibility if they had left the engines alone, they could have steered around it - due to the effect you mention above.
A classic example of having several options to choose from, and time to pick the right one, and doing the absolute worst thing possible. Had they gone in nose-first then backed off of the berg (or waited for Carpathia and Californian to help tow them off), the bow would have been about as hydrodynamic as a log and they would have been moving slow as hell the rest of the way to NYC, but likely nothing worse.
Considering how much of an iceberg is underwater, I fear that if they had continued with the engines full ahead and tried to steer around the berg they would have simply moved the impact point further back, and possibly gone down faster with more boiler rooms compromised.
Of course, without the vast improvements in maritime safety that came about as a result of the uproar around Titanic's sinking, who knows how many people would have died over the coming decades?
Considering how much of an iceberg is underwater, I fear that if they had continued with the engines full ahead and tried to steer around the berg they would have simply moved the impact point further back, and possibly gone down faster with more boiler rooms compromised.
Of course, without the vast improvements in maritime safety that came about as a result of the uproar around Titanic's sinking, who knows how many people would have died over the coming decades?
Someone did. Thomas Andrews cried "foul" over the point but was over-ruled during construction by Ismay and Co. at White Star who said the total of 48 boats Andrews requested would "clutter the decks".
Yes, she was. I've some interesting photos of the work in progress to install that second inner hull on Olympic. Not so bad building a double hull during initial construction, but what a tedious job after-the-fact.
During WWI, Olympic steamed through a German sub, cutting it in two, in a defensive move. She was essentially undamaged from the encounter. I'd bet she'd have fared a little less well had that hull not been doubled a few years earlier.
Also, she'd been involved in a collision with the royal navy vessel Hawke prior even to Titanic's maiden voyage, in an incident in 1911. The damage was significant (two compartements flooded) but not life-threatening. But a cursory glance at the damage that flooded those compartments suggests a double hull would have minimized the result of that damage.
Bear in mind if you're out cruising these days that nearly all cruise bricks have single-skinned hulls, like Costa Concordia, now laying on its side at Giglio.
It's not really a matter of "luck". There's been a bit of major debate over the decades of the 20th century about logitudinal bulkheads. They've been installed more often in naval warships, but also in passenger ships, including Mauretania of 1907 and her ill-fated sister Lusitania.
The debate about longitudinal bulkheads is that they generally confine the load of water incursion to one side, necessitating tricky counterflooding, generally, leading often enough to capsizing events, whereas without them, you have a better chance of keeping a ship on an even keel (at least in calm seas), though "feeboarding" in rougher seas may still lead to capsizing events.
Some of the most heavily compartmentalized ships, including longitudinally, have gone down in much less time than Titanic took, with lesser damage, usually because of capsizing. Consider Lusitania at about 16 minutes as an example.
With regard to Titanic's breakup, and the angle of descent, it wasn't all that shallow of an angle. It was extreme, by any measure, though well short of the purely vertical suggested by some survivors at the time. A calculation of the force exerted at the pivot point makes it clear no structure built of mere steel by the hand of man could withstand it. Other ships have broken up on the surface without even achieving the dramatic angles she was subjected to during her particular sinking scenario.
Last edited:
As they say, hindsight is 20-20 but had the ship rammed the berg head on, chances are she would have remained afloat. A lot of people in forward compartments would have been killed outright though. But this act would've flown in the face of basic human instinct- that is to try to avoid danger at all cost. Could you imagine the Monday morning quarterbacks ganging up poor Murdoch? "Why didn't you just avoid the thing?"
Reconstructionists are pretty much agreed, best course of action would have been to had remained FULL AHEAD and FULL APORT. Damage would have been minimal, if at all.
Yup, Murdoch got it exactly wrong. And it's weird that he made the choice he did, since as a veteran sailor, it just defies logic. Kind of like a really experienced professional driver trying to lock all four wheels, and steer the car at the same time. It isn't what they are taught, and it just doesn't work. All I can imagine is that when faced with that decision he trained for for his entire career, he just froze and made totally the wrong call. He KNEW that the rudder needed fast moving water moving over it for it to work. Especially in the Olympic class, where the rudders are small. But he was likely out of his depth, and couldn't decide if they were going to hit (in which case slowing down would be the best approach) or avoid (in which speed is your friend). Instead of making one choice that would have saved the ship, he waffled and made two that doomed her.
Yup. It's also been speculated that if Captain Smith ordered the watertight doors left open, the ship would've settled at an even keel which might have allowed her to remain afloat longer and made launching of lifeboats safer and to full capacity- particularly the collapsibles. Again that decision would've flown in the face of any ship master- that is to keep water out of his vessel at all costs. She would have sank regardless but the final plunge would've been far less cataclysmic.
In the final analysis, we'll never know for sure.
In the final analysis, we'll never know for sure.
Last edited:
What about another option...full reverse, but steering into the collision rather than trying to slide around the berg? Try to take as much velocity off as possible, while minimizing the impact point.
She was afloat long enough to get all of the lifeboats off with full capacity. But nobody wanted to get into the first ones because many didn't believe she was actually sinking. When it became apparent, there was a mad rush for the ones left, of course. And the less-full ones didn't come back, for their own reasons. Probably afraid of getting swamped in the panic.
--
I don't know any Captain that would willingly ram in iceberg head-on without the benefit of 100 years of hindsight. They came within meters of missing the thing. I thought the reason the rudder was less effective was the third screw in front of it...the turbulence from that screw, when reversed, being the cause, not the slowing of the water outright. Given that many ships didn't have a screw in front of the rudder, and this was the ships maiden voyage, the crew wouldn't have been completely versed in her particular performance intricacies, that would become second nature a year into running her.
Last edited:
bogle111
A Canadian enjoying Wales
Funny how that worked--in the early days, they added more (even fakes, like Titanic, Olympic and Britannic sported) to make the things appear "more powerful" to reassure the travelling public. Then, by the 50's with modern liners, the public favored the safety suggested by modernity that went along with single funnels (with lines remodelling and removing funnels, reducing three to two or even one). (Not that the number actually has any bearing on it, one way or another.)
Lucky you, both Samaria and an Empress boat!
I priced out that QE2/Concord package in '82 and decided that, for the money, I'd rather have a house. :yes:(But all these years later, I rather wish I'd allowed myself that extravagance.)
Ironically, the Cedric (White Star) was told to stay in New York so that non-American survivors of the Titanic could be repatriated to the UK when the Carpathia reached New York. However, testimonies had to be given in the US and none of the survivors were on the Cedric. I know virtually nothing of my Grandfather (reason for death etc.) except that he sailed to New York on the Cedric, which when launched in 1903 was the largest passenger ship afloat.
As I said earlier, I have sailed the Atlantic twice, once the Samaria (Cunard) which was a great blast aged 5 (1954), no sea sickness for me but most adults were horizontal! It was it's last transatlantic crossing as after unloading at New York was to go to Newark to be scrapped - great consolation which we only found out when on board.
The other was the Empress of England (Canadian Pacific) recently fitted (late '58) with larger pods to increase stability in stormy seas - everyone was ill - looked very flash and new. When you look out of a porthole and have to look skyward hoping to see the top of your nearest wave, you know you shouldn't be there. Even as a kid, that is scarey. And to see Icebergs not far away during the day, is also scarey.
Re: Titanic II
The more I read about this I have my doubts it will ever be finished. It will be somewhat different than the original in many ways, it has to be for safety considerations as stated. This is also not the first time a "reconstruction" has been proposed. I do believe this is a publicity stunt, and so far from the real thing, as to be considered a "theme park attraction". Kind of takes the STEAM out of Steamship - no pun intended. That is if it ever gets close to completion.
That is an interesting look into the past, thanks Bogle.
I agree I think people hoping to be 'wowed' by the 'Grand Staircase' for example, may very well be disappointed with a vinyl and plastic re-creation that will be a travesty of the original.
If it does get built, it would be interesting to see - but if it even 'thinks' about being a theme park attraction type of thing, (as opposed to a historic museum like faithful reconstruction) - I wont be there :thumbsdn:
Last edited:
SOLAS regulations will make that not likely. It might have a thin veneer of wood over less combustible materials so that it superficially looks the same, but SOLAS won't permit so much kindling.
Is that right? No decorative wood allowed in the construction of modern liners? Bummer. :thumbsdn:
bogle111
A Canadian enjoying Wales
Modern Cruise Ships are also large and carry more passengers - a profitable business, whereas he has only signed a "preliminary" agreement and is advertising the proposition. Seeing what the tickets are worth. This is not a Concorde. Until he signs the binding agreement, all bets are off. Many pundits in Australia reckon this is a bluff, as it is financial suicide, as the figures don't stack up.
As one headline put it "How do you turn a Billionaire into a Millionaire."
As one headline put it "How do you turn a Billionaire into a Millionaire."
