SCALE AND SIZE


Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 23, 2002
545
0
181
This may seem like a daft question but I was wondering if the ships of today such as the QE2's scale would outscale titanic totally.
I know the liners of today are really big but were the liners of the grand age taller with their huge funnels and taller masts??
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
That's a good question. I think (think mind you) ships of today pretty much out scale Titanic in just about every catagory from a technical stand point. Perhaps folks like Mark C. who know a little more about the Olympic Class vessel will be able to add some more.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Greg, quite a number of modern cruise ships would have taller funnels than Titanic. Hers were about 138 feet above the waterline. If the masts are considered, it's a different story. Titanic's mastheads were 200 feet above the waterline. This will only be surpassed when Queen Mary 2 goes into service. Her highest point will be her funnel, at 204 feet above the waterline.

I can't see anybody trying to beat that on a powered ship. Since 1912 quite a few bridges have passed over the water and these can limit shipping movements. Even the great Verrazano Narrows bridge has a clearance of only 215 feet, so Queen Mary 2 will be at about the height limit.

We tend to overlook the fact that the biggest commercial ships of today are freighters of various kinds. Container ships bigger than Titanic are commonplace and certain bulk carriers and tankers make her look like a dinghy. Even Queen Mary 2 will not be top of the bragging order.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Another modern joy is power lines. I'm sometimes asked if Titanic could get into Port Adelaide. The answer is that she couldn't get past two sets of power lines that have about 160 feet clearance. We've sometimes had visits from big square riggers and this involves some careful checking of mast heights and tides.
 

Erik Wood

Member
Aug 24, 2000
3,519
15
313
Yikes, I don't think that I have ever had to contend with power lines. That is a new one to me.
 
B

Brent DeFatta

Guest
I would just like to know the maximum capacity of passengers on the Titanic was. I have heard a few different numbers. I would operate any help.

Brent D.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Fellow Curmudgeon, the total is actually 2,603.

Since the maximum allowed on board all told was 3,547, a crew of up to 944 could in theory be carried, though I fancy there was not room for that number.

The figures on the Passenger Certificate should be a taken as authoritative. The Certificate was required to be displayed on board in a conspicuous place. Captain Smith could be fined £10 if he failed to do this.

The numbers are a bit fluid, as the third class spaces could be varied a little and could include an open dormitary. Also, the Emigration Officer who cleared the ship was authorised to reduce the number of passengers carried, if cargo or stores were carried in passenger space.

I sympathise with Brent's puzzlement. In other sources I found wildly different numbers. Even Lord Mersey's report has quite different figures, especially for first class.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Yeah...I noticed that. I found a number of errors in regards the casualties in the Mersey Report too, so I tend to take it with a bit of caution.

Right on about the 2,603 too. That'll teach me to try and do numbers when I'm tired. (Although maybe I could go back in a time machine and get a job with Enron or Arthur Anderson. They liked creative mathamatics!
wink.gif
)
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,358
248
338
Different numbers? Did you know there were four different sets of figures for Olympic in 1928? Registered. Maximum. Certified, etc.!

Best regards,

Mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads