Is it true


May 1, 2004
294
1
183
The only connection I can see between Titanic and Lusitania is that they were both steamships built roughly at the same time period (Were they both built at Harland and Wolff?) plying the North Atlantic between Southampton and New York City. They both had the same ... cachet, is it? Ships to be seen on, if you wanted to be seen. If you could afford the passage, you either went on Lusitania because the Cunard ships were supposed to be faster, or on Olympic or Titanic because they were supposed to be larger and more lavish.

Olympic was Titanic's older sister of the same pattern, so I suppose survivors of the disaster would have seen similarities. I confess I would have looked for them, had I had the chance to board her.

Olympic was also a troop carrier (Canadian troops) during World War I, so she would've run the risk of being torpedoed like Lusitania had been. (I've often wondered what she looked like inside then. I've see a picture of her in her dazzle paint, but know nothing about her innards.)
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,367
390
433
quote:

(Were they both built at Harland and Wolff?)
No; Lusitania was built at John Brown.
quote:

plying the North Atlantic between Southampton and New York City
In Lusitania's day, Cunard sailed from Liverpool, not Southampton.
quote:

Olympic was also a troop carrier (Canadian troops) during World War I
Once the U.S. entered the war, she also carried U.S. troops.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,209
531
188
16
Maryland, USA
no. peple were probably traumatized, and didn't want to go to the beach, much less sail again! Lawrence beesley always turned his back to the sea after Titanic's demise
 

Similar threads

Similar threads