Interesting link


Status
Not open for further replies.
The Marine Salvors Seawise are connected to Douglas Woolley the 'supposed' owner of Titanic (!!) i've read his website and the man is clearly a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic! He also intends to raise the wreck of Queen Elizabeth from Hong Kong harbour which would be a pretty incredible feat, considering the wreck was removed and used as landfill in the mid 1970's! Way to go DW!
 
The ONLY way to even consider getting the Titanic off the bottom would be to dismantle her and bring it up piece by piece imho, and even that would be difficult if not impossible with todays technology.
Not to mention expensive beyond imagining. The only benefit from that would be the technology itself that would have to be created to do it.
That said, Titanic will be still sitting where she lies a 100 years from now. (Or whats left of her that is)
 
I wouldn't worry about Mr. Woolley one way or another. It's one thing to assert ownership and quite another to actually prove it in a way that would convince an admiralty court rather then having Hizzonor the Judge laughing for an hour.
 
>>considering the wreck was removed and used as landfill in the mid 1970's!<<

The trouble with the Internet is things get repeated until they are quoted as fact.

Some time ago, May 2006, I emailed the Boatyard and Marine Operations Manager at Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club regarding the fate of this ship - this is his reply - I have pasted it in exactly as sent to me:-

Please see the following links for further information on the fate of the
Seawise University. Hopefully this will answer your questions.

A) Topsides cut aweay - lower portion of hull remains in the mud
B) Location in South part of Rambler Channel - S.E. of Tsing Yee Island



http://ocean-liners.schuminweb.com/ships/queen-elizabeth.asp

Also - from a HK Govt. publication

http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/publications/sheet/doc/g3_chapter_7.pdf

Modification of the Sea Bed

The seabedi n the district has beenc onsiderablym odified by man. Southwesot
f Tsing Vi, sandb as been
dredged as fill for reclamation; the dredged area is shown on the map sheet.
The sand, which is alluvial
and part of the Chek Lap Kok Formation, occurs in a positive bathymetric
feature lateral to the channel
running down the west coast of Tsing Vi. This channel forms part of the
submarine channel system linking
UrmstonR oad,B rothersa nd Ma Wan channelsto the north with the Easta nd
West Larnrnac hannels
to the south. The sedimenits describeda sa poorly sortedf ine to coarseq
uartzo-feldspathics and.
In the southernp art of the RamblerC hannelt,h e naturals eabedis coveredw
ith anthropogenicm ud comprising
an admixture of natural silt and effluent. The high organic content of the
mud causes acoustic
blanking of a spectaculanr ature. Otherd ebrish as been dumped in the
channel,e speciallyi n the southern
part. Boreholesh avep enetratedb uilding rubble and rubbert yres. The
largests ingle item is the remnants
of the liner the QueenE lizabeth( SeawiseU niversity),which sank to the
southeast of Tsing Yi in January
1972. The top portion was cut away but much of the hull remains buried in
the mud.
 
Aye, fair enough. It's still pretty unsalvageable whichever way you look at it. Considering the initial fire damage and the subsequent deterioration of being on the seabed for the 35 years, I can't see the point of raising it other than selling it off as tacky ships souvenirs.
 
It's a wonder why he wrote an entire book on the subject and regularly appears at Titanic-related events as 'a serious proposition'. Here was me thinking that all pro-salvage types were spotty boys in dorm rooms waiting for the next season of 'The Big Bang Theory' and nothing else to do but 'what if?' ad finitum. Apparently this extends into old age aswell. You know what they say 'There's no fool, like an old fool!'
 
>>It's a wonder why he wrote an entire book on the subject and regularly appears at Titanic-related events as 'a serious proposition'.<<

Probably because it brings in tons of attention, tons of money, or both. Take yer pick!
 
I've been very interested in reading all of your comments. I was fortunate enough to sail on the QE as a small child and have fond memories of the experience.

Might someone here know, with a degree of certainty, whether the remnants of the Elizabeth are still part of the harbour? It was my understanding that she was finally used as landfill for the new Chep Lap Kok airport. If this is accurate, then the chaps who have dreamt of salvaging the hull are going to have to not only dig deep into the mud, but dodge a few aircraft as well.

I’d be really grateful if anyone has any information about this. Also, my thoughts are that whatever ‘rights’ the salvage chaps felt they may have had through British courts are now void and would need to be renegotiated with the Chinese government.
 
>>Might someone here know, with a degree of certainty, whether the remnants of the Elizabeth are still part of the harbour?<<

Your take on it pretty much mirrors my own understanding of the situation. Most of the wreck was left in situ after a portion of it was hauled away for scrap. One of our members has the nitty gritty details but the bottom line is that what's left of the Queen Elizabeth is going nowhere.
 
Thank you for that. My curiosity is whether the land reclamation actually covered over what remained of the hull, or whether it's still blocking harbour traffic. I've read about the goal, dream, fantasy, etc., to salvage what remains of the hull and bring it back to the UK, but frankly, I don't believe there's anything of sufficient volume to remove. Also, there was once the assertion that tonnes of crude still remain in ballast. I can't see that as being possible due to the environmental impact it would have created and surely must have been removed decades ago. Having said that, I can't find any articles in the media, such as FT, or the Hong Kong Star that allude to this.
 
Father Bill, all I can do is point you to N. james Wright's post above which spells out the situation. He's done the homework and the .pdf link at least is working. It's a 1.42 mb file but well worth reading.

I've been to Hong Kong several times and I never saw any sign of the ship's remains. From that map in the .pdf file, it looks like she was simply buried. I doubt you'll find any mention in the local press about this beyond perhaps a footnote buried in newspaper morgue. After all the fireworks, their attitude would have been something along the lines of "It's been covered." after which it would be quickly forgotten.
 
If one looks at the James Bond film the ship is clearly on it's side. My understanding of what happened is that the portion of the ship above the water was removed, and what remained was left where it was, imbedded in the sea floor, which is basically mud.

Never been to Hong Kong, but I am sure it would be possible to ascertain the exact location from the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club, and then charter a boat to the location. I wouldn't expect there will much to see though.
 
>>I wouldn't expect there will much to see though.<<

I've seen both ways into the harbour and the anchorages, and there's certainly nothing showing above water. I've been trying to find some harbour navigation charts on line but no joy there. The exact location of the wreck would be noted on such documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top