Replica to be built in Liverpool

I couldn't find any mention of the Liverpool project on any of the sites that publicise the 2008 festivities. If anything is going to be built in time for 2008, they'd better start spoiling steel PDQ!
 
Here's an article on the Liverpool static replica. Its supposed to cost £270, which would be well over half the amount needed for the real thing.

Link

[Link edited to preserve the width format of the thread - PR]
 
Ryan, we've already seen what was basically the same article article (Just somewhat reworded) 15 months ago. You'll find the link to the version in The Belfast Telegraph in the first post above.

I can tell you with a very high level of confidence that you'll need way more then £540,000,000 to build a replica of the Titanic because of all the skillsets and tooling that would have to be revived on essentially a one time basis to build a riveted hull. And what a waste it would be since any near perfect replica would never ever be allowed to sail in any sort of commercial service since it would fail to meet SOLAS regulations in spectacular fashion.

Sorry if that doesn't sit too well, but that's the real world for you. No shipping line is going to invest big bucks in something they know would be a money losing illegal to operate white elephant.
 
It wouldn't be a riveted hull, but one built in the same sectional manner cruise ships are being built in today. Thats not 'cheating', thats practical. Builders could order the sheet metal with 'bumps' in the right places, if they wanted to, for a more authentic look.

I have no idea who drew this but I thought it was pretty neat...
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c142/ragemanchoo/Titanic.jpg
 
"Sorry if that doesn't sit too well, but that's the real world for you. No shipping line is going to invest big bucks in something they know would be a money losing illegal to operate white elephant."
But if we could, think of all the people who would be clamoring to ride in steerage;-)
(The majority of the accomodations)
 
>>It wouldn't be a riveted hull, but one built in the same sectional manner cruise ships are being built in today. Thats not 'cheating', thats practical. Builders could order the sheet metal with 'bumps' in the right places, if they wanted to, for a more authentic look.<<

Then it just wouldn't be a faithful replica...but anything that would be legal to sail and appealing to a broad enough base of customers to make the ship pay wouldn't be. This, Ryan, is the point your missing.

BTW, that image you have in your photobucket account is a drawing that was published in Popular Mechanics back in 1997. You'll notice that nothing has happened since then, but Popular Mechanics has quite the track record for failure in it's predictions.

>>But if we could, think of all the people who would be clamoring to ride in steerage;-) <<

And Jim raises an interesting point here. For all the press to the contrary, the glories of the Titanic were way over rated and most people would be shocked at just how small the cabins were. Even in first class, a lot of them didn't even have their own toilets! That any such accomadation wouldn't meet legal standards for habitability is obvious and the question of the steerage accomadation doesn't even bear discussion.
 
I may be missing something here but it's my understanding that it won't be a sea-going vessel but will be permanently moored at Liverpool docks.

It is purely a commercial venture with an assortment of restaurants, shops, bars and I believe an hotel.

Therefore all this talk of it not being seaworthy and uninhabitable is, I hesitate to say it, useless conjecture.
 
If they build it in Liverpool they will probably build it as they are doing in USA with the Branson project (http://www.titanicbranson.com) I hope they will build it like that one, but in full scale this time.

102167
 
>>I may be missing something here but it's my understanding that it won't be a sea-going vessel but will be permanently moored at Liverpool docks.<<

The problem here is that the vessel, seagoing or not, would have to meet some very stringent laws regrading safety and habitability, even as a static hotel. (And his thing would be afloat!) As a museum, the idea is nice in principle, but in reality, museum ships that are the real McCoy have a very difficult time making ends meet and some ultimately end up in the scrapyard despite some very determined attempts to save them.

>>Therefore all this talk of it not being seaworthy and uninhabitable is, I hesitate to say it, useless conjecture.<<

Some of what's been discussed here include proposals for an operational vessel that would be involved in the cruising trade, and therein lies the rub. Anything that would be legal to sail would bear only a superficial resemblance to the real thing, and anything that was a faithful replica wouldn't be legal to operate. I hope this helps explain things.
 
I have come to believe that a realistic replica, while it might be of intense interest to someone like myself, and most readers here, would probably do more harm than good to the legacy of the Titanic.

The expectation for the general public, established via movies, song and story, is probably hopelessly out of line with the reality.

I can just hear someone saying "*This* is what all the fuss has been about for nearly a century??? What a dump!"

Wayne

p.s. The dicussion on another thread about the Normandy in the present time crystallized my thinking in this area.
 
Wayne...

I can just hear someone saying "*This* is what all the fuss has been about for nearly a century??? What a dump!"

Yeah, I can just picture that myself. That, and a room full of giggling teenagers and people on their cell phones telling their friends back home that they're "on the Titanic," and making silly jokes about having to get off in 2 hours, 40 minutes so they don't "go down with the ship," if they are even remotely aware of the history of the ship, that is. For people like us, it would be a dream come true to be able to walk into a recreation of that beautiful ship, but anything less than a faithful, seafaring, replication would be somewhat disappointing. Not to say that if they did build this museum/hotel version I wouldn't be first in line! I'd have been very well satisfied with being able to tour the movie set. I wish THAT could have been made into a permanent museum.
 
>>The expectation for the general public, established via movies, song and story, is probably hopelessly out of line with the reality.<<

I concur.

The glories of the Olympic class liners are way over rated in the modern day mythos surrounding these ships. They really weren't bad for the time and had quite a few creature comforts, but even in First Class, not ever cabin was a millionairre's suite. I think a lot of people today would be stunned find out just how small even some of the best cabins were. In that day and age, it was all accepted as a matter of course, but today, people like elbow room.
 
The fabled luxury of Titanic is based on her 39 luxury suites, furnished in various styles, none of them nautical. Mustn't remind the customers that they have 4,000 metres of salt water beneath them!

Titanic was authorised to carry up to 905 first class passengers. Most of them slept in little cabins, some with bunks that folded up. Any half-decent modern motel would offer better facilties. Almost all the hype surrounding the ship is of quite recent origin.
 
The difference here is that there are no pie in the sky dreams of building an operating ship. (Or should I say, crack coccaine in the pipe?)
 
Back
Top