Titanic II to be constructed in China

[Cruise Liner Fan]

From what I have read Titanic II is being built more as a cruise ship, than a proper Ocean Liner.

 

Let me explain. Stephen Payne specifically designed the Queen Mary 2 for the rigours of the North Atlantic. Her hull is extra thick, streamlined, very stable, her bridge extra high, she has a breakwater on her bow, she has extra speed (some 30 knots available).

 

Payne looked at the North Atlantic weather charts for 100 years and designed the QM2 so she will never arrive at NY or Southampton late (assuming the weather is never any worse that the past 100 years). She can slow down in a storm to make the ride comfortable for the passengers and still has the reserve speed to make up the time.

 

The Titanic 2 will have a 1912 designed hull which has been modified (widened) to be more stable. I’m not aware that she will have any specially capabilities for the North Atlantic. After all she’s quite a small ship – much smaller than the QE2 for example.

 

Palmer says that Titanic 2 able to achieve 23 knots and do a six day crossing. I’m told that 23 knots will more likely give you a seven day crossing. In heavy seas that could extend to eight days. She’s unlikely to offer direct crossings in winter, unlike the QM2.

 

Titanic 2 might win on charm and publicity, but technically she will be no match for the QM2.

Maybe what you say about Titanic II designed more as a Cruise Ship than a Ocean Liner is right because in this 8 minute youtube video that is about the technical details of Titanic II

says that the Titanic II will have a draft of only 26 feet.The draft of a ship is from the waterline down to the bottom of the ship where the keel is located.The original Titanic had a draft of I think 34 feet and the QE2 has a draft of 32 feet and the QM2 has a draft of 33 feet.Correct me if I'm wrong but if the Titanic II is to be a true Transatlantic Liner wouldn't she need a draft of at least 32 feet? The other technical details of the Titanic II is that she will be 883 feet long in overall length and her beam will be 106 feet. Regards,Jerry

[VallyD]

All in all I agree with Vallyd- I am facinated with this ship also since I was about 10 years old- after secretly watching the movie- Titanic- with Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb- one of my favorite films every since!

People are facinated with deasasters since manhood I presume- so I understand this guy´s enthusiasm. The thing with the costumes and the 3 class system is just beyond me in our days. The ship´s exterior- all right, but we are over a hundered years later...! Would I sail her- hm I thing about is since I heard from the newbuilt!

I am sure there will be memorial services held in the honor of the lost souls in 1912.

Michael

 

I wouldn't even entertain the idea of sailing her... ever. It's just beyond me as well. I'm no expert at how ships are built to sail transatlantic, but from what I can gather from his plans and the comments here, it doesn't seem to be built adequately for this passage? Or am I wrong? :confused:

[glojo]

I wouldn't even entertain the idea of sailing her... ever. It's just beyond me as well. I'm no expert at how ships are built to sail transatlantic, but from what I can gather from his plans and the comments here, it doesn't seem to be built adequately for this passage? Or am I wrong? :confused:

Hi Vally,

Could you perhaps try to explain what you mean?

[London-Calling]

I'm no expert at how ships are built to sail transatlantic, but from what I can gather from his plans and the comments here, it doesn't seem to be built adequately for this passage?

 

Hi VallyD, the QM2 (an Ocean Liner) is fast and strong and built to take the North Atlantic, year in, year out, even in winter.

 

Many cruise ship cross the pond, sometimes once in the spring and once in the Autumn (Fall), to reposition. However the tend to avoid the North Atlantic is the winter. They would not sink, but they would probably get a pounding.

 

When Oasis left the ship-yard and crossed to Fort Lauderdale in December 2009, she met a storm, had to slow down, arrived a couple of days late and had two broken lifeboats and much damaged furniture.

 

My point was that the original Titanic was the best that they could build for the North Atlantic in 1912. The new version sounds like she will be built more like a fair-weather cruise ship. I don't think we would see her on the Atlantic too often.

Edited March 8, 2013 by London-Calling

[Subarctic]

Hi VallyD, the QM2 (an Ocean Liner) is fast and strong and built to take the North Atlantic, year in, year out, even in winter.

 

Many cruise ship cross the pond, sometimes once in the spring and once in the Autumn (Fall), to reposition. However the tend to avoid the North Atlantic is the winter. They would not sink, but they would probably get a pounding.

 

When Oasis left the ship-yard and crossed to Fort Lauderdale in December 2009, she met a storm, had to slow down, arrived a couple of days late and had two broken lifeboats and much damaged furniture.

 

My point was that the original Titanic was the best that they could build for the North Atlantic in 1912. The new version sounds like she will be built more like a fair-weather cruise ship. I don't think we would see her on the Atlantic too often.

 

Without being a marine engineer, I'd think any ship will take a pounding in the North Atlantic in winter. There is after all a special Plimsoll line painted on all ships just for that. Wide ships such as the big cruise liners would receive hits and slamming from the waves coming from underneath at the hull, but I'm not tempted to think they'd suffer any structural damages because of that.

 

As far as I know, the hull of the QM2 is made of slightly thicker material than cruise ships for reasons of corrosion resistance. While this would appear perfectly sensible, I don't think I've heard of an active passenger ship having sunk because of rusted-through plates, after all there is a policy in place to check the hull, at least yearly I think. Also, no ship will be completely rigid. If you search around YouTube, for instance, you will be able to see how much freight ships will actually flex internally in a storm. This is something people in the design business will computer simulate very thoroughly, just as they do in the business of building aircraft.

 

I saw someone mention the draft of the Titanic II vs the Titanic (I). If and when the draft is smaller, that will reflect the fact that the displacement, which equals the total weight of the ship, due to Archimedes, will be smaller as the modern equipment and the modern engines will be much lighter, and the hull will be optimized for weight savings. No need to carry a huge amount of coal on board either. So, nothing to do with any seaworthiness aspects. The new ship will simply be lighter.

 

I'm 100% satisfied that my fellow countrymen in the Deltamarin design office (of which, as it happens, a majority has recently been sold to Chinese interests) will design a ship that is 100% seaworthy, also regarding the North Atlantic in winter.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Subarctic

[London-Calling]

I'm 100% satisfied that my fellow countrymen in the Deltamarin design office will design a ship that is 100% seaworthy, also regarding the North Atlantic in winter.

 

Oh I don't doubt it Subartic.

The point is that QM2 is designed for a fatigue-life of 40 years, ten years more than a cruise ship. Her hull is not just a little 'thicker' in places, it is twice as thick as a regular cruise ship. This added 40% to her building cost.

Have you ever wondered why the 'Kings Court' if long, slender and confusing? The QM2 has a very strong 'backbone' and could not have the type of wide open space for the buffet than many big cruise ships have.

If a regular cruise ship (including Titanic 2, I guess) operated the QM2's regular crossing schedule, including winter crossing, they would receive structural damage/fatigue easier than the QM2.

Oh and as for speed, a cruise ship would get delayed arriving at NY or Southampton on occasions as they have little reserve speed. The QM2 has a spare 10 knots!

I was under the impression that a deep ‘draught’ helped a ship cut through rough seas better, than a shallow draft?

[Fredette]

NOT TRUE!!!! Do your research ,heheee:)

 

How not true? My daughter went. It was said in the area. How not true? Do you think it is not true that my daughter went? Or that it is not said in Belfast? Why do you say so?

 

http://www.the-titanic.com/Titanic/files/18/18018641-c9cf-4129-96a6-4bd0efc1b525.jpg

Edited March 8, 2013 by Fredette
Supporting information

[Subarctic]

Oh I don't doubt it Subartic.

 

The point is that QM2 is designed for a fatigue-life of 40 years, ten years more than a cruise ship. Her hull is not just a little 'thicker' in places, it is twice as thick as a regular cruise ship. This added 40% to her building cost.

 

Have you ever wondered why the 'Kings Court' if long, slender and confusing? The QM2 has a very strong 'backbone' and could not have the type of wide open space for the buffet than many big cruise ships have.

 

If a regular cruise ship (including Titanic 2, I guess) operated the QM2's regular crossing schedule, including winter crossing, they would receive structural damage/fatigue easier than the QM2.

 

Oh and as for speed, a cruise ship would get delayed arriving at NY or Southampton on occasions as they have little reserve speed. The QM2 has a spare 10 knots!

 

I was under the impression that a deep ‘draught’ helped a ship cut through rough seas better, than a shallow draft?

 

London Calling, I'm interested in seeing an authoritative reference for the figures you gave. I once searched for some for some time, but was pretty much out of luck.

 

As far as I understand the matter, parts of the hull that are not likely to be easily corroded would receive no benefit from a thicker plate. On the contrary, the weight and the running costs will rise. If sheer rigidity is a design goal, for some reason, that can be more economically obtained by adding more (lightweight) "boxes" to the structure. The economic realities of today will dictate that modern ships will carry no excessive structures as the predicted loads and the properties of the material can nowadays be computer simulated to a high precision. I understand the R&D is now being focused on optimizing the weight of the welding seams and the welding process itself.

 

A deep draught will equal more friction against the water. The less steel you have immersed in the water the faster you'll sail, and with less fuel.

 

I did not quite get "the wide buffet". I suppose you mean the Promenade space on the inside of the ship. Those are superficial structures above the hull only and not critically load-bearing. In fact, the Promenade concept originates from the Silja Serenade cruise ferry (1989) that is still sailing between Sweden and Finland.

 

Some I believe interesting videos on the matter of flexing and rigidity:

 

 

Edited March 8, 2013 by Subarctic

[legion3]

So its not an exact replica as would be expected. Ships of that era would never be ok to sail in these days. To much exposed machinery, way to many tripping hazzards, way to much unconcern for 3rd class passenger safety. Looking at upclose pictures of the Olympic her decks were way to cluttered and way to dangerous for the modern world.

 

Will the 3rd class passnegers be excluded from the ships ammenities in first class or will it simply be similar to modern cruise ships where generally the bottom deck inside cabins can use all of the facilities just like an owner's suite passenger?

 

I doubt anyone would be willing to be excluded in todays world to preserve historical accuracy. Its one thing to have added perks or special things for higher classes who pay more on certain ships and to have the "perks" the third class had on the ships of that era.

 

Overall it seems like a silly idea to do this but its not my money and I would certainly look for a coupon day to sail on this ship.

 

No outdoor pool? But a casino ;)

[London-Calling]

London Calling, I'm interested in seeing an authoritative reference for the figures you gave. I once searched for some for some time, but was pretty much out of luck.

 

See here (interview with designer, Stephen Payne):

 

http://www.beyondships2.com/qm2-stephen-payne-interview-part-two-page-2.html

 

I think the hull is discussed on page 2 of the review. The comparison with the QE2 is also interesting!

[London-Calling]

Will the 3rd class passnegers be excluded from the ships ammenities in first class or will it simply be similar to modern cruise ships...

 

Palmer says yes that they will be excluded, but I think he will have to change his mind on that.

 

One problem is that each class had it's own dining room, lounge and smoking room. The 3rd class carried twice as many passengers as the 1st class, so they could not all fit in the first class dining room. I think that he may need a rota.

 

I don't see how he cannot have an external pool, given modern tastes, even if it is not authentic.

 

Tit2 will be a strange mix of authenticity, modernity and fiction.

[Subarctic]

See here (interview with designer, Stephen Payne):

 

http://www.beyondships2.com/qm2-stephen-payne-interview-part-two-page-2.html

 

I think the hull is discussed on page 2 of the review. The comparison with the QE2 is also interesting!

 

Thank you - sounds authoritative enough!

 

He seems to say: [w]e have plating of nearly 38 mm in places whereas it is more than likely to be 16 or 18 on most of the cruise ships. (my emphasis)

 

The somewhat mysterious "in places" does not to me suggest the whole hull would have been constructed with a thick plating, on the contrary in fact. There is I think pretty much sales talk in his statement in general.

 

The hard facts could be hidden somewhere in some marine engineers' conference presentation, or similar off-line sources.

[glojo]

Oh I don't doubt it Subartic.

 

The point is that QM2 is designed for a fatigue-life of 40 years, ten years more than a cruise ship. Her hull is not just a little 'thicker' in places, it is twice as thick as a regular cruise ship. This added 40% to her building cost.

 

Have you ever wondered why the 'Kings Court' if long, slender and confusing? The QM2 has a very strong 'backbone' and could not have the type of wide open space for the buffet than many big cruise ships have.

 

If a regular cruise ship (including Titanic 2, I guess) operated the QM2's regular crossing schedule, including winter crossing, they would receive structural damage/fatigue easier than the QM2.

 

Oh and as for speed, a cruise ship would get delayed arriving at NY or Southampton on occasions as they have little reserve speed. The QM2 has a spare 10 knots!

 

I was under the impression that a deep ‘draught’ helped a ship cut through rough seas better, than a shallow draft?

Hi London Calling

Are you talking about fatigue life as opposed to corrosion of materials?

 

I cannot begin to imagine how much steel would be required to even try to make a large ship rigid and even if this was possible would this vessel then break its back as soon as it sailed through any type of heavy sea conditions?

 

We talk about the size of ship as though size relates to safety? I hope I have misunderstood that point as it is a nonsense. Size of the ship is really not relevant to what should be being discussed on this thread as s 5000 ton cruise ship will easily cross the Atlantic and why not cross it in all conditions? The answer I am guessing is that below decks will not be a pleasant place in advers conditions. the bigger thed ship the more chance of stability but I would suggest any new build cruise ship would come with stabilisers as being a standard fitment that on other types of ship might be considered an expensive and uneccesary luxury? Bottom line hower is that no ship can take on Mother Nature.. There will ALWAYS be conditions that will be the master of all things that float ;)

[VallyD]

Hi VallyD, the QM2 (an Ocean Liner) is fast and strong and built to take the North Atlantic, year in, year out, even in winter.

 

Many cruise ship cross the pond, sometimes once in the spring and once in the Autumn (Fall), to reposition. However the tend to avoid the North Atlantic is the winter. They would not sink, but they would probably get a pounding.

 

When Oasis left the ship-yard and crossed to Fort Lauderdale in December 2009, she met a storm, had to slow down, arrived a couple of days late and had two broken lifeboats and much damaged furniture.

 

My point was that the original Titanic was the best that they could build for the North Atlantic in 1912. The new version sounds like she will be built more like a fair-weather cruise ship. I don't think we would see her on the Atlantic too often.

 

Hi Vally,

Could you perhaps try to explain what you mean?

 

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me :) I have watched so many beautiful videos of the QM2 and know that she does the North Atlantic, I just didn't realize so many others did. Sometimes you know you are broadcasting your ignorance when people don't even understand your question LMBO!!! :p

[3rdGenCunarder]

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me :) I have watched so many beautiful videos of the QM2 and know that she does the North Atlantic, I just didn't realize so many others did. Sometimes you know you are broadcasting your ignorance when people don't even understand your question LMBO!!! :p

 

Actually, not that many other ships cross the North Atlantic on the route QM2 takes. Many of the repositioning cruises take a more southerly route in order to have smoother seas and better weather.

 

I know that other ships CAN surive the northern route, but I wouldn't do it on anything but QM2.

[glojo]

Actually, not that many other ships cross the North Atlantic on the route QM2 takes. Many of the repositioning cruises take a more southerly route in order to have smoother seas and better weather.

 

I know that other ships CAN surive the northern route, but I wouldn't do it on anything but QM2.

Why on earth is there this fixation about one HUGE ship?

 

Why this fixation about the North Atlantic?

 

Are you suggesting that the old Queen Mary, the old Queen Elizabeth the SS France, or the SS United States were better or more stable sea keeping ships than the new Queen Elizabeth or the Queen Victoria? My father served on the Queen Elizabeth during the Second World War and by crikey that ship took a battering on high speed crossings. They CANNOT walk on water, they cannot take on mother nature. We have folks saying how these older ships were far more stable than their newer counter parts and yet they over look the fact that stewards used to hang extra ropes in the corridors to help passengers negotiate the passageways in the more rough conditions!!!

 

I would suspect most cruise ships INCLUDING the Queen Mary 2 would take the most economical route when crossing the Atlantic but do you think ships a twentieth the size or even smaller regularly cross the Atlantic in winter.

 

When storm force winds were expected off the coast of New York last year, the Queen Mary did EXACTLY what we are talking about...... She altered her course to navigate around those adverse conditions. It was NOT hurricane strength winds, they were storm force. The captain QUITE CORRECTLYtook the correct action .

 

The Queen Mary cannot walk on water, the Titanic could not ram icebergs and not pay the price. No doubt the ship could have coped with the conditions but some of the passengers might have been uncomfortable.

 

The Titanic was not a bad ship, the Costa Concordia was not a bad ship, they just came off second best when taking on nature. We are not talking about ships that were unstable, dangerous or not seaworthy.

[VallyD]

glo-

 

I was just confused :confused:

[3rdGenCunarder]

Why on earth is there this fixation about one HUGE ship?

 

Why this fixation about the North Atlantic?

 

Are you suggesting that the old Queen Mary, the old Queen Elizabeth the SS France, or the SS United States were better or more stable sea keeping ships than the new Queen Elizabeth or the Queen Victoria? My father served on the Queen Elizabeth during the Second World War and by crikey that ship took a battering on high speed crossings. They CANNOT walk on water, they cannot take on mother nature. We have folks saying how these older ships were far more stable than their newer counter parts and yet they over look the fact that stewards used to hang extra ropes in the corridors to help passengers negotiate the passageways in the more rough conditions!!!

 

I would suspect most cruise ships INCLUDING the Queen Mary 2 would take the most economical route when crossing the Atlantic but do you think ships a twentieth the size or even smaller regularly cross the Atlantic in winter.

 

When storm force winds were expected off the coast of New York last year, the Queen Mary did EXACTLY what we are talking about...... She altered her course to navigate around those adverse conditions. It was NOT hurricane strength winds, they were storm force. The captain QUITE CORRECTLYtook the correct action .

 

The Queen Mary cannot walk on water, the Titanic could not ram icebergs and not pay the price. No doubt the ship could have coped with the conditions but some of the passengers might have been uncomfortable.

 

The Titanic was not a bad ship, the Costa Concordia was not a bad ship, they just came off second best when taking on nature. We are not talking about ships that were unstable, dangerous or not seaworthy.

 

I'm not trying to start an argument here. Just clarifying the routes taken by some of the other lines when they reposition a ship to the other side of the pond.

 

Just stating my opinion, not trying to convert anyone to my choice of ship. I wasn't even trying to toss the idea out for debate. Just stating my personal opinion. I'm trying not to ramble too much, so I won't explain all of my reasons for my personal opinion. But I will book my crossings to on QM2.

 

And the "fixation" about the North Atlantic on this thread is probably because the thread is about Titanic II, so people are discussing the route she is expected to be taking.

[London-Calling]

I know that other ships CAN surive the northern route, but I wouldn't do it on anything but QM2.

 

 

I did a tandem crossing on-board Queen Vic (in tandem with the QE2)which was in January 2008. The Queen Vic (a new ship then) creaked her way across the pond, slapping the waves, sounding like an old sailing ship. It was not a very smooth ride being a cruise ship! The QE2 looked like she was given her passengers a better ride.

 

 

Queen Vic from the QE2.

[3rdGenCunarder]

I did a tandem crossing on-board Queen Vic (in tandem with the QE2)which was in January 2008. The Queen Vic (a new ship then) creaked her way across the pond, slapping the waves, sounding like an old sailing ship. It was not a very smooth ride being a cruise ship! The QE2 looked like she was given her passengers a better ride.

 

 

Queen Vic from the QE2.

 

Ah, but as Captain McNaught used to say, YOUR SHIP had the better view!

:D ;)

 

I was on a HAL Vista in rough weather on the way from Vancouver to San Francisco, and she rode quite well. The TV navigation channel said we were in hurricane force winds. We were heading straight into the wind, which helped, but we could do only about 12 kts.

[glojo]

[quote name='3rdGenCunarder']Ah, but as Captain McNaught used to say, YOUR SHIP had the better view!
:D ;)

I was on a HAL Vista in rough weather on the way from Vancouver to San Francisco, and she rode quite well. The TV navigation channel said we were in hurricane force winds. We were heading straight into the wind, which helped, but we could do only about 12 kts.[/quote]Plus the better photographer :)

[quote]
I'm not trying to start an argument here. Just clarifying the routes taken by some of the other lines when they reposition a ship to the other side of the pond.

Just stating my opinion, not trying to convert anyone to my choice of ship. I wasn't even trying to toss the idea out for debate. Just stating my personal opinion. I'm trying not to ramble too much, so I won't explain all of my reasons for my personal opinion. But I will book my crossings to on QM2.

And the "fixation" about the North Atlantic on this thread is probably because the thread is about Titanic II, so people are discussing the route she is expected to be taking.
[/quote]When having a debate it is MOST important we read the words wrote by those we might not agree with and most of all respect each other..

There is certainly NO need to explain your reasons and regarding the re-positioning point of your post would it be fair to suggest that the ships re-positioning [U]might[/U] be heading for the summer season in the Mediterranean?

If this is the case then the course they will steer would possibly be different to that taken if they are making for the UK? Plus even if they are heading over here am I correct to suggest there are two routes that captain's have a choice of taking and this also applies to the Queen Mary.

I TOTALLY respect your opinion and I find it nice that we all have our favourite ships and sometimes we might prefer to simply sail on this ship or a specific cruise line. My thoughts are that the Queen Mary 2 will offer a most comfortable ride across this expanse of water, if the seas were rough, or excessively rough then I would much prefer to be aboard this fine ship. We are both as one on this point BUT... I would also be as happy sailing aboard the two smaller Cunard ships. They are excellent sea going vessels and will handle seas far better than ocean going liners of yesteryear. Could they cross as fast as those older ships? most certainly NOT but by crikey they are far, far more stable, more comfortable and more luxurious.

If I were a gambling man I would have a fifty pence bet on this Titanic ship not being built but before putting my money where my mouth is... Have any contracts been signed? If the answer is no then I would be willing to have this wager :)

The picture of the Queen Victoria is impressive and I would have loved to have taken it but...... it merely shows what happens when ships sail the high seas when conditions are not as nice as we would prefer. I wouldn't be surprised if shortly after that she might have decreased her speed but the picture is nothing out of the ordinary.

I love that picture and would really like to see the original image. Top marks to the photographer.

[Subarctic]

[quote name='London-Calling']I did a tandem crossing on-board Queen Vic (in tandem with the QE2)which was in January 2008. The Queen Vic (a new ship then) creaked her way across the pond, slapping the waves, sounding like an old sailing ship. It was not a very smooth ride being a cruise ship! The QE2 looked like she was given her passengers a better ride.

[/quote]

It's the psychological factors at work. The original Titanic, for instance, had four smokestacks only due to psychology and sales. A ship with four was in the eyes of the customers inherently safer that a ship with three.

I'd say over 99.9% of all ships crossing the North Atlantic are ships other than the QE2. Nevertheless, they do arrive in their respective ports safe and sound. Even if your ride was unpleasant in some ways, it's still a long way from being unsafe. One critical factor will be the speed the ship will be sailing against the wave action. The normal lineup of passengers will wear out in the storm sooner than the ship.

For comparison:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgH-vEriU6o[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMHo7ZkoimI[/url] Edited March 11, 2013 by Subarctic

[Cruachan]

Just a couple of minor points.

[quote name='glojo']...Are you suggesting that the old Queen Mary, the old Queen Elizabeth the SS France, or the SS United States were better or more stable sea keeping ships than the new Queen Elizabeth or the Queen Victoria?[/quote]

There is a danger here of conflating the two disparate concepts of roll and stability. The two things are related but they are not the same. Stability is a factor of the relationship between a vessel's centre of buoyancy, centre of gravity, and metacentric height. A very stable ship will have a short period of roll which can be highly uncomfortable for those on board. A less stable ship will have a longer period of roll which is much more tolerable. The passenger ship designer has to strike a balance between the need to be sufficiently stable to be safe while simultaneously avoiding the sharp rapid roll that comes with excessive stability.

[quote name='glojo']...the Titanic could not ram icebergs and not pay the price. [/quote]

Actually there is now a considerable body of well informed maritime opinion that believes that, had Titanic "rammed" the iceberg head on that would have been the best (or perhaps least bad) scenario of the lot. Had she done so her bows would have absorbed the worst of the impact and the watertight bulkheads further back in the hull could have withstood the water ingress and the ship would have remained afloat. What sealed her fate was the fact that she sideswiped the iceberg, resulting in a glancing, grazing collision that opened the side of the ship over a considerable length allowing multiple watertight compartments to flood.

[quote name='glojo']... The Titanic was not a bad ship, the Costa Concordia was not a bad ship, they just came off second best when taking on nature... [/quote]

I think it's rather stretching the point to say that Costa Concordia "came off second best when taking on nature". She was destroyed entirely by the misguided actions of her own master.

J

[scifisteve]

Does The QM2 still acknowledge the Titanic Wreck site ? I for one would like the chance to pay my respect.

[capnpugwash]

[quote name='scifisteve']Does The QM2 still acknowledge the Titanic Wreck site ? I for one would like the chance to pay my respect.[/quote]

Yes