Should there be a replica

  • Thread starter charmaine louise morris
  • Start date

C

charmaine louise morris

Guest
does anyone think there should be a replica of titanic set as a museum in southampton docks?
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,028
261
353
Charmaine, this has been done to death. Please check threads before posting. You'll find there's endless stuff about replicas, both floating and ashore. In brief, they won't happen.
 
B

Brian R Peterson

Guest
Hi All!

Dave is correct, many many ideas for a theme park or museum Titanic replica have been toyed with, especially after the Cameron movie - but none saw the light of day. It is estimated that a full 1:1 non-operational (The EPA for one would not allow a coal fueled ship these days and two there are more people who know how to work a triple expansion reciprocating steam engine below ground than above) scale Titanic with original interiors would run in the neighborhood of of $200,000,000 - finding investors for a low to naught yield return like that would be next to impossible.

Best Regards,

Brian
 
J

john skinner

Guest
i think a duplicate titanic is not to brilliant an idea.1,no person or group would financesuch a project.2,there is most likely not going to be a paying crowd to make up the financial deficit.3,even if there was a substantial gathering of paying customers,there would be difficulty making a profit even if the ship toured the world
 
B

Brian R Peterson

Guest
Thank you John,

How eloquently you repeat my exact point

Best Regards,

Brian
 
J

Jack Coburn

Guest
Instead of selling it for scrap the Curnard Line should have sold the Olympic for a hotel ship like they did with the Queen Mary. That would have made a perfect replica.
 

Nigel Bryant

Member
Aug 1, 2010
533
0
71
Wellington, New Zealand
Hi Jack,

"Instead of selling it for scrap the Curnard Line should have sold the Olympic for a hotel ship like they did with the Queen Mary. That would have made a perfect replica."

Sounds like a grand idea. The only problem with this is that you have to look at the period; the financial situation was not that great with the booming depression of the 1930s. Scrapping the Olympic would be more cost effective and would provide jobs for unemployed workers rather than turning the Olympic into a floating hotel when money was tight. Floating ship hotels weren’t that common in those days until the advent of the Queen Mary in the 60s. In the 30s, it would make more sense to scrap the ship for the money gain especially when the world was in the Depression. It's still the same for today; more vessels get scrapped than turned into floating hotels. It's just more cost effective. Sad fact but its true.

You also have to take in account the massive upkeep problems you would have with a vessel like the Olymic if she did indeed become a hotel. It would be one spiral cost after another, painting refurbishing, re-plating, wiring, gutting areas (which would have certainly would have happened- look at the Queen Mary) for improved accommodation (who’s going to want to stay in third-class) The money just wasn’t there, maybe if the Olympic had lived on after the second world war, there might have been a small possibility but probable not. The beloved Aquitania was also sent to the scrappers and she lived through two wars. The idea was just not feasible.

Hope this helps,

Nigel
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
Nigel did a nice job of covering the ground here. Upkeep for any ship is expensive and musuems don't always succeed because of that. You might want to check out the information on the Navy Ships Donation Program to get an idea of what's involved. Particularly the Ship Donation Application Process.

Getting the ship is not easy, and keeping her is even tougher. It's no better with a civilian vessel where maintainance can be a costly nightmare. IIRC, there was a point where the Queen Mary was in such desperate condition and losing so much money that there were serious proposals to scrap the ship.
 
J

Jamil Sepulveda

Guest
i personally think there should be a replica. Except it shouldnt be a museum, it should be an actual ship in service. I know though that there is a lot of problems with it, and that it impossible to make an EXACT replica of it because of all the newest ship regulations. Even if they couldnt build an exact replica, i still think it would be great if there could at least be a close replica of the titanic, although i doubt it will ever happen,

best,

jm
 
Dec 31, 2003
272
1
173
Hampstead, London
Everyone, here's a 'fun idea'. Mad - but fun. It came into my head recently as I eyed some colourful canal-boats at 'Little Venice' here in London. So! You've thought of it too - my 'tenth-the-length' (and width and depth and height) 'accurate working model' concept. Now, wouldn't that be just the answer! Almost everything below deck I'd leave to conventional boat designers. But, I might insist on my own 'authentic' stateroom. Wouldn't you?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
Jamil, while some of us might not mind seeing a replica, the problems that attend to same have been covered at length in this and a number of other threads. Literally hundreds of schemes have come and gone since 1997 and so far, not even so much as a keel plated has been joined on the slip. The hard economic realities are that a replica would be a very expensive one off design and a white elephant as far as the owners would be concerned.

Unless an investor or group of investors comes forward with some sort of business plan and deeper pockets then good sense, it just ain't gonna happen. <shrug>
 
J

Jamil Sepulveda

Guest
Micheal S;

Yes i know that it will never happen, there was this one website that i went to and it had all these proposals for titanic replicas and not one of them had progress, i could only hope that there would be a succesful attemp to build a replica, but as i said before, i doubt it will ever happen, I was just putting my imput on the subject of building a replica - im not saying it will ever happen, that was just my opinion --

best,

jamil
 
Dec 31, 2003
272
1
173
Hampstead, London
Michael was so right to warn us of red-tape! I woke up this morning (awfully cramped in that narrow bed of my tiny 'authentic' stateroom!) to find that my 'tenth-the-length' canal-boat - just christened "Titanica" - was already well beyond the legal limits for anywhere in the UK or Ireland. All may have to be entirely rebuilt (a bit wider, now - please!) and move on to a river or a lake. But, I bet that gets scuppered too!
 
B

Brendan John O'Rourke

Guest
Actually, it wouldn't be too hard to build a near-enough replica of Titanic. All the protests i've read about the EPA making a fuss over a coal-fired ship is, in my view, rubbish. How about all those coal-fired steam locomotives in the world? I don't recall hearing or reading about the EPA fussing over them. Today, with the skyrocketing oil prices, a coal-fired liner would be more cost-effective. The not-enough-people-know-how-to-stoke-a-boiler thing is understandable, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.In about the late 20's and early 30's, many ships still were being fired by coal, but instead of hundreds of men stoking the boilers, there were mechanical systems that did the job. These only needed a person regulating the flow of coal, and they saved labor. But if, as i've heard, the EPA or whatever will not allow a coal-fired liner, then use oil, it worked for the Queen Elizabeth, the Mauretania{after she was converted from coal-firing}, the Queen Mary, and even the QE2 before she was converted to diesil power. And if, as mentioned, there are not enough people who know how to run these boilers, the triple-expansion reciprocating engines, and the low-pressure turbine, TRAIN SOME! I offer my sincerest apollogies if I offended anyone, I just wanted to make a logical point.
 

Lucy Burkhill

Member
Mar 31, 2006
166
1
113
Why does there seem to be all this obsession about building a replica (working?!) Titanic?

There was (still is, of course!), only ONE Titanic, and that's how it should stay. I admit I can understand many Titanic enthusiasts' desire to sail in a replica, but I believe she should never be recreated. She was unique, and was a symbol of an era that has long gone, and one which we can never return to, even if we wanted to. I consider her to have been an individual in her own right, we can no more recreate her any more than we can recreate Marilyn Monroe or Elvis.
Besides, I'm sure many people ie non-Titanic buffs, who would simply find the idea distasteful.

There is also the question of where such a vessel would be built, I doubt very much that it would be here in Britain- we didn't even have anywhere remaining able to build the latest Cunard liner. In respect for her builders, let's remember the Titanic as having been built in Belfast in 1912, please!!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
>>All the protests i've read about the EPA making a fuss over a coal-fired ship is, in my view, rubbish.<<

The EPA would tell you otherwise and more importantly, so would the people who actually have legal jurisdiction over maritime matters and law. Since their pronouncements have the legal force of the law, that's where the discussion begins and ends.

Yes, there are ways that a coal fired ship can be made more environmentally friendly, but the catch is that what's being proposed is an authentic replica of the Titanic and she didn't have these features.

>>And if, as mentioned, there are not enough people who know how to run these boilers, the triple-expansion reciprocating engines, and the low-pressure turbine, TRAIN SOME!<<

Where and on what? Except for ships where the water needed to produce the steam is heated by a nuclear reactor, stem propelled vessels have been on the way out for a very long time. It's easy enough to say "Train them" but in order to do that, the extensive facilties needed to conduct such training need to exist.

They don't.

Nor is anyone likely to build them for a method of propulsion that's been dying for well over a quarter of a century.
 

Similar threads