Titanic II to be constructed in China

[babine]

The only way that I'd book a sailing on the new Titanic would be if I got to spend a night with Leo Dicaprio.

[glojo]

[quote name='Cruachan']Just a couple of minor points.



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.



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.



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[/quote]
I think when we dissect the words we can read into them different meanings and I would suggest no matter how we define stability the cruise ships of today are probably far more stable than those older 'liners'. Naval Architects have wrote numerous very interesting papers on these wide beamed ships being far more stble than much narrower vessels but obviously I am simplifying an EXTREMELY complex subject that usually baffles me :(;) Ship design will always be influential regarding suitability\stability. Wide ships may well be sometimes dangerous in rough seas just like long narrow vessels might also be dangerous.. Horses for courses.

The Titanic or any ship will fare far better if they strike an object head on and daft as it might sound, the ship will also fair better if it hits something stern on!! Something that is unlikely to happen but the point experts make is that hitting something end on means loosing single compartments.

[IMG]http://home.swipnet.se/~w-11578/ship_photos/town_class/liverpool/liverpool_bow.jpg[/IMG]

If this ship had been holed in both the boiler rooms and engine rooms, she would probably not live to tell the tale.

The Titanic and the Costa Concordia had underwater splits down their side that pierced a number of main compartments which meant unlike HMS Liverpool those ships were doomed.. The same fate would have fallen on any other merchant ship that received similar damage

The Costa Concordia incident will have its day in court and I fear that possibly the media willl influence the outcome. Quite clearly the ship was way too close to that rock and without any doubt the buck will always stop with the master and from allegations that have been published regarding his conduct [B][U]after[/U][/B] the collision, he certainly does have a lot of questions that need answering. [B][U]BUT [/U][/B]a company that is aware that a ship is sailing a route that might be at variance to the designated route and continues to allow the master to take that unauthorised route may well also have a case to answer. My point however was that[B][U] ANY cruise ship of any era[/U][/B] that rammed that rock,at that angle, at that speed would havre been in a world of hurt. It could also be argued\suggested that the box like design helped save the lives of a good number of passengers?? The ship was dead in the water, probably sinking and was blown by the wind back onto rocks that kept her afloat. Perhaps a ship with a less box like shape night not have been so effected by the wind???

[Jim Avery]

I am not about to be brought into a discussion of "ship stability" but do want to have you look up the difference between Initial Stability, which most of you seem to be discussing and Secondary Stability (sometimes referred to as ultimate stability). Current cruise ship builders are in love with Initial Stability.

[bazzaw]

[quote name='Jim Avery']I am not about to be brought into a discussion of "ship stability" but do want to have you look up the difference between Initial Stability, which most of you seem to be discussing and Secondary Stability (sometimes referred to as ultimate stability). Current cruise ship builders are in love with Initial Stability.[/QUOTE]

Yes Jim-- I believe that many confuse "stability" with "comfortableness"

This vessel is very stable - but not very comfortable :D

[IMG]http://www.uliad.net/images/Year3/catamaran.jpg[/IMG]

Barry

[glojo]

[quote name='Jim Avery']I am not about to be brought into a discussion of "ship stability" but do want to have you look up the difference between Initial Stability, which most of you seem to be discussing and Secondary Stability (sometimes referred to as ultimate stability). Current cruise ship builders are in love with Initial Stability.[/quote]Agreed


I also think folks are trying to get too technical and are dissecting statements to make a point.

Bottom line however is how rare it now is to loose a ship at sea through adverse weather conditions. Of course we can all say this may well be down to better weather predicting but we can make as many excuses as we want... Ship design, ship stability has improved no end and a loss at sea now will usually be down to insecure cargo, metal fatigue on older ships or dare we mention human error??

Would we want to cross the Atlantic on the SS United States or the Queen Elizabeth? No creature comforts on the United States, luxury on the United States compared to the modern Cunard ships was poor, she rolled like a pig, lots of vibrations, more pitching than the Cunard ships, but in calm conditions the United States flew.... (She would also bankrupt ANY private company that tried to operate her)

My guess regarding the picture Bazzaw submitted is that the catamaran was up on one float being pushed to its limits and the capsize was 'self induced'. Not really an instability problem more a problem of too much wind pushing the boat up onto one float!! Yes a mono-hull with a nicely designed keel might just go on its beam ends and loose its mast, then hopefully it will get back onto an even keel, unlike a catamaran that once inverted is not going to upright itself as easily. So YES a catamaran will bite if you push things beyonds the limits it was designed for. Horses for courses.

Would you take a long, thin mono hulled canal boat out to sea!!!:rolleyes::eek:;)

[scifisteve]

[quote name='capnpugwash']Yes[/quote]


Thanks capn

[London-Calling]

[quote name='babine']The only way that I'd book a sailing on the new Titanic would be if I got to spend a night with Leo Dicaprio.[/quote]

Don't worry if he's not, I hope to be onboard!;)

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Is there anyone here on this messageboard starting to get suspicious of this scheme to build Titanic II? I mean it has been a few weeks since the last Titanic II announcement party and still there is no announcement from Mr. Palmer of signing the contract with a Chinese Shipyard to build Titanic II. On a Titanic messageboard someone wrote that he or she checked the website of the Chinese Shipyard in question and nowhere on this website is there any mention of building Titanic II which when and if it happens this building of Titanic II would create a lot of publicity for the shipyard. I remember a decade ago around 2003 the French shipyard that built QM2 had a webpage dedicated to the construction of the QM2. Even if this Titanic II is built the QM2 will remain as my favorite ship. Regards,Jerry Edited March 21, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[Happyboating]

This is the latest report I can find:

[url]http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-ii.html#!/exjun_[/url]

but, as you say, still no confirmation that contracts have been signed.

[bazzaw]

[quote name='Cruise Liner Fan']starting [/QUOTE]

Starting??????? :D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Barry

[Germancruiser]

I just believe that " newbuilt" when I see in progress and nearing completion. Maybe the project sinks faster then original Titanic!

[glojo]

Interesting the this Titanic will be much smaller than the two Vista class Cunard ships but will allegedly carry more passengers. I am ALWAYS impressed when I am able to look at the photographs forum members post and I have yet to see what I call overcrowding.

This is something that helped me select Cunard for our cruise, Titanic II might have an air of possibly being over crowded and if that is what customers want then that is exactly what they may well get. (If it is ever built)

[Cruachan]

[quote name='glojo']... if that is what customers want then that is exactly what they may well get. (If it is ever built)[/quote]

Given Mr Palmer's plan to provide everyone with fancy dress, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that this is what the [B]costumers[/B] want!

:D:D:D

J

[3rdGenCunarder]

[quote name='Cruachan']Given Mr Palmer's plan to provide everyone with fancy dress, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that this is what the [B]costumers[/B] want!

:D:D:D

J[/quote]

Perhaps Mr. Palmer can get some of the costumes left over from the Titanic movie. I saw a few of them at a costume exhibit a few years ago. There was an elaborately beaded gown from a scene in the dining room. And this was just for one of the "extras!" No wonder movie budgets are so high.

[Cruachan]

[quote name='3rdGenCunarder']Perhaps Mr. Palmer can get some of the costumes left over from the Titanic movie. I saw a few of them at a costume exhibit a few years ago. There was an elaborately beaded gown from a scene in the dining room. And this was just for one of the "extras!" No wonder movie budgets are so high.[/quote]

And I see that everything has not been smooth sailing for Mr Palmer on his other wee boat recently:

[URL]http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/03/22/449122_gold-coast-news.html[/URL]

J

[Sauer-kraut]

[quote name='Cruachan']And I see that everything has not been smooth sailing for Mr Palmer on his other wee boat recently:

[URL]http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/03/22/449122_gold-coast-news.html[/URL]

J[/QUOTE]

Sounds like he doesn't have the best luck in his marine endeavors! Not sure I'd like to be on any boat he's entertaining aboard!! :eek:

[QUOTE]The operation took close to two hours and Mr Pomas said it was not the first time Mr Palmer had called for help out on the water.

"It can be quite dangerous whenever you are dealing with a boat of that size and it's challenging," he said.

[COLOR="Red"]"We have assisted Clive once before when he ran aground in a similar-sized boat on the northern Broadwater a few years ago."[/COLOR]

Mr Palmer's string of bad boating luck is ironic considering he plans to build the Titanic II, a modern-day replica of the original, ill-fated cruise ship, which he hopes will set sail in 2016. He has recently promoted the venture overseas, tweeting about the response its had. Even yesterday he tweeted: "The world has embraced Titanic II".

Mr Palmer was unavailable for comment when contacted by the Bulletin yesterday.
[/QUOTE] Edited March 22, 2013 by Sauer-kraut

[BlueRiband]

FWIW, Titanic II's design firm, [URL="http://www.deltamarin.com/main.php"]Deltamarin[/URL], has now included the project on their company web site. (For those interested there is a blog there for Q&A.)

The project is not posted on the English language side of the Jinling Shipyard site. Apparently they would have to expand their facilities to accommodate a vessel of 269m (882 ft 6 in). They don't have a dry dock large enough and they use sideways launching for ships up to 200m (656 ft). That, plus they have never built a passenger ship. (It would require a substantial expansion of their infrastructure for a one-off project. Future business would have to justify the expense.)

[glojo]

[quote name='mariepr']FWIW, Titanic II's design firm, [URL="http://www.deltamarin.com/main.php"]Deltamarin[/URL], has now included the project on their company web site. (For those interested there is a blog there for Q&A.)

The project is not posted on the English language side of the Jinling Shipyard site. Apparently they would have to expand their facilities to accommodate a vessel of 269m (882 ft 6 in). They don't have a dry dock large enough and they use sideways launching for ships up to 200m (656 ft). That, plus they have never built a passenger ship. (It would require a substantial expansion of their infrastructure for a one-off project. Future business would have to justify the expense.)[/quote]Thank you for the link and what are your thoughts on this as you raise some very good, thought provoking points?

Best wishes
John

[BlueRiband]

The shipyard is government owned, meaning that expansion of their facilities would be placed on their taxpayers. Not knowing anything other than what you and I can read, I would say it's a 50:50 chance the thing really does get built. The publicity for the shipyard would be enormous. (Recall that [url=http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWS/MMMAR10.html]Harland and Wolff tried to get a government guarantee[/url] so they could build QM2 - despite not having built a ship in years.) The [I]successful[/I] completion of a project on this scale could only help their business. Edited April 16, 2013 by mariepr

[glojo]

[quote name='mariepr']The shipyard is government owned, meaning that expansion of their facilities would be placed on their taxpayers. Not knowing anything other than what you and I can read, I would say it's a 50:50 chance the thing really does get built. The publicity for the shipyard would be enormous. (Recall that [URL="http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWS/MMMAR10.html"]Harland and Wolff tried to get a government guarantee[/URL] so they could build QM2 - despite not having built a ship in years.) The [I]successful[/I] completion of a project on this scale could only help their business.[/quote]
I agree with what you are saying especially the publicity part. My thoughts were surrounding the sincerity of the person placing the order.

It makes no sense to place the order unless you are committed to the build? (question)

I have possibly been in the corner that thought this was a wacky idea that was never going to happen, but now I am sitting on the fence with a very open mind as this shipyard would surely not like to be made to look silly? (question)

[Sonofaswabbie]

I am wondering where they are going to come up with the 1000 "colliers" to shovel the 825 tons of coal into the 159 furnaces round the clock while at sea for 7 days.....

[Cruachan]

[quote name='Sonofaswabbie']I am wondering where they are going to come up with the 1000 "colliers" to shovel the 825 tons of coal into the 159 furnaces round the clock while at sea for 7 days.....[/quote]

Another job for us poor ole steerage passengers! :eek::D

J

[Norfolk Brit]

[quote name='Cruachan']Another job for us poor ole [B]steerage[/B] passengers!:eek::D

J[/quote]

[B]Still[/B] no Q1?

Neither have I. In fact, I still have no cabin whatsoever:(.

Sir Martin

[Cruachan]

[quote name='Norfolk Brit'][B]Still[/B] no Q1?

Neither have I. In fact, I still have no cabin whatsoever:(.

Sir Martin[/quote]

Can't think why you are worried - as an extracorporeal being you can occupy any cabin that takes your fancy and nobody would know you were there!

J

[Norfolk Brit]

[quote name='Cruachan'] as an extracorporeal being
J[/quote]

Hang on a minute, who are you calling fat?:D

Sir Martin