A few random thoughts that might be relevant to this conversation:
- The very safety regulations inspired by the disaster would prohibit the sailing of a historically-correct Titanic replica. Conforming to current SOLAS regulations would cause the replica ship's design to lose much of its authenticity and charm. An enlarged rudder, radar/comm antennas on top of the wheelhouse, lifeboats and rafts suspended from promenades, and structures removed to improve access, etc...the replica could only approximate the original.
- Riveted hulls are no longer standard practice in the shipbuilding industry, for good reason. Faking the appearance of a riveted hull creates more problems than it solves.
- The well decks in the Olympic class were designed for one purpose only...the push the highest continuous deck down as low as possible, thereby keeping steerage quarters as low in the hull as possible (reference the requirements for emigrant ships). Otherwise, the fore and aft well decks are wasted space from a cost-efficiency standpoint. Why repeat an outdated restriction? How does the designer justify keeping those huge funnels?
- Titanic and her ilk were emigrant ships, or "liners." Today's emphasis is on cruising, not straight crossings. It doesn't matter if one argues that Titanic, Lusitania, Imperator or Ile de France were superior aesthetically...the fact is that none of those ships would efficently support the modern cruise industry.
- Economic distinctions are not as clear-cut as they were in 1912. Who would pay for a low-fare ticket aboard a replica Titanic, knowing that they would be prohibited from eating in the First-class Dining Saloon, relaxing in the Reading & Writing Lounge, working out in the Gymnasium, or swimming in the Swimming Bath? And, if the class distinctions for these attractions were swept away, then how would those spaces physically accommodate the greater influx of people? How many people can fit into a 30-ft-long pool at one time?
- What about luxuries not envisioned by Titanic's designers, which are expected by today's travellers? Where does one take their morning run, for example? What entertainment can be arranged for a population that expects large-scale productions shows and scheduled activities? Today's typical ocean traveller is not content with only a deck chair, blanket and good book.
- Similarly, the passenger compliment is dramatically reduced when everyone is entitled to a private cabin. Communal toilets would not be appreciated at the prices charged. If the designers were to provide even the minimal amount of convenience expected by today's travelers, then the resulting passenger compliment would be only a fraction of Titanic's original capacity. How would an owner keep a replica Titanic economically viable? Raise the cost of tickets, beyond the industry competitive rate? Assuming that people would pay extra money to travel in Titanic, we find ourselves full circle back to the matter of expectation vs. the ability of the original design of the ship to provide.
- In order to remain economically viable, a modern cruise ship of Titanic's GRT must carry somewhere between 500-1000 passengers. Modern ships of this size are normally used in the Mediterrean, Aegean and Caribbean. A Titanic replica would be of too deep a draft and require too much in the way of port services (including tugs) to survive in that environment. Also, because of Titanic's original labour-intensive internal layout, a comparitively large crew would be required, further driving up costs. Open-ocean cruising is handled today by the largest ships...100,000 GRT and up, carrying well over 1000 passengers. A replica Titanic could not compete and/or remain financially viable.
Titanic may have sunk before her time, but liners died from natural causes a long time ago. Any ship built now must be built to accommodate the new realities of ocean travel.
Lastly, wouldn't the attraction of sailing aboard a replica Titanic be macabre, by definition? Why vacation aboard the namesake of a ship known mainly for a disaster in which over 1500 people met a horrible fate? Of course, you could name the replica "Olympic 2" (O2? Doesn't work for me) or (what I would consider to be more fitting) "Gigantic," but we all know that the real draw is in the name, "Titanic." No investor would consider anything else. I find it interesting that many people who consider the wreck hallowed ground have no problem with the Titanic name being exploited commercially.
Parks