Should there be a replica

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.
 
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!!
 
>>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.
 
Back
Top