Titanic 2 not a replica


David Christensen

We all know that Cunard is making second, modern versions of their old ships, QE2, QM2 and QV2. These ships are larger, more luxurious, and built more for cruising than their older counterparts.

Because Cunard is in a way, the only remaining part of White Star Line (The two merged) Do you suppose Cunard could make a Titanic 2?

It would not be a replica, and would look more like todays ships, it would be the largest passenger ship afloat, have more luxuries and things to do than any other ship, and basically be like the original Titanic in that way.

You could also do replicas of some portions of the ship, such as the Grand Staircase, Lounge, and the Smoking Room.

Do you think this version of "Titanic 2" would be possible, seeing as it would be larger and able to carry more people, than a replica?
If you spend enough money, anything's possible. The biggest cruise ship now being built has a Gross Tonnage of 220,000. No doubt she'll feature all kinds of things, up to hot and cold running dancing girls. Quite Titanic!

The trouble is, soon somebody will build something even bigger. There's talk of a Japanese cruise ship with a Gross Tonnage of 400,000. That's quite possible, given that much larger tankers are around. Anything named Titanic would soon look rather silly.

Personally, I think that the cruise lines would have tried to cash in on the Titanic name in the late 1990s in the wake of Cameron's flick, if they'd seen money in it. Evidently they didn't.
QE2, QM2 etc are named in homage to other famous vessels which gave long service and were much loved by generations of passengers. I can't see any Line naming a new ship as a reminder of a vessel which gained fame only by sinking and taking the lives of most of its passengers and crew.
Until some time in the 1990s, there was a third Titanic. She was a tanker, formerly called Daugavils. When she was sold, the new owners bravely changed her name. I've never seen what her crew thought of it.
My only encounter with that particular tanker was in 1991 when I saw her in the Persian Gulf. That she was conducting trade at all tends to indicate that the owners didn't have much of a problem recruiting a crew.
How the way i see this,once you change this,that then you change the inside then the outside,you can't call it Titanic 2.All the ship will be is just a new mordern ship.
Titanic 2 has to be built the exact way, how the old one was.
I'm not saying build Titanic exactly the same way for the trasalantic run,more like show and tell.
>>All the ship will be is just a new mordern ship.<<

Which is the only way any such ship will ever be built, especially if she's intended for trade.

>>Titanic 2 has to be built the exact way, how the old one was.<<

And no such ship will ever be built. Even if somebody could be found who could raise the funds for the job, such a ship would not meet current safety regulations to say nothing of modern habitabilty and environmental protection standards.
For show and tell perpose and the decae of the real Titanic going, i think they should just go for it but only as a show and tell.
For our great grand children there will be nothing left of the real Titanic.
Even ww2 aircraft a being rebuilt and flowen exactly how they were in 1940,isn't the same concept as the Titanic being built?
>>Even ww2 aircraft a being rebuilt and flowen exactly how they were in 1940,isn't the same concept as the Titanic being built?<<

Not exactly. These aircraft still have to meet current standards for airworthiness in order to be cirtificated to fly and that often includes installing modern navigation aides and instruments.

Also, the scale is smaller. A ship is an enormous capital investment which is floating in a perpetually corrosive environmemt. Building even one is expensive on a scale of hundreds of millions of dollars and nobody spends that kind of money lightly...

Except governments but that's a rant for a different board!
Micheal-These ww2 air craft shells are exacly the same as they were back in ww2 era but inside got modern equipment.
Can they do the same with The Titanic,build her shell exactly the same but everything inside is mordern and with modern equitment. Can /could that work?

I think your idea is great! It would be really nice to see 'Titanic' once more, sailing down Belfast Lough on maiden voyage number 2 but I think it's a dream and will always be so.
However, if you really think about it: perhaps some very high powered business Tycoon like Richard Branson or Donald Trump could be persuaded to put up the cash to build her. Especially if you could prove that by building 'Titanic 2' , they would make lots and lots of cash. I don't think that would be too hard either. I'd bet there would be millions of 'Titanic' buffs all over the world queuing-up for maiden voyage tickets.
It might be advertised as the sea version of the 'Orient Express'. That was a very successful revival of the luxury days of train travel when wealthy people were able to travel across Europe by train to the 'Orient' (actually Turkey. However in this case; there would be the added attraction of the unique 'Titanic' story plus, as I have already alluded to- a ready made passenger list for years ahead, made-up of the members of all the Titanic Clubs and Societies. They could even be persuaded to dress for the occasion in the cloths of 1912.
Yes! there's lots of advantages - including the prospect of providing lots of work building her and afterwards, manning her with the very large crew that would be needed. I would make one condition though - if you realise your dream; I want to be her first Captain - I've still got my old uniform! (I mean OLD!) but I'm sure I will have to fight-off not a few other Captains on this and other Titanic Web-sites for that particular honour.

Keep the ideas coming and as Dave recommends: add just a wee bit 'polish' to your spelling.
>>Can they do the same with The Titanic,build her shell exactly the same but everything inside is mordern and with modern equitment. Can /could that work?<<

From the standpoint of technical and tooling issues, there's no reason why a visually identical shell with a completely modern inside couldn't be built. Builders could even fashion fake but convincing looking rivet heads they want to.

The problem is two fold: The straight up bow would be completely illegal because of SOLAS regulations. The other is financial. Any such vessel would be aimed at a niche market which is decidedly small. Too small to really justify the costs. If somebody wants this to work, it'll take some really creative marketing to make it happen.
Jim-Yes, it be so great to see Titanic with our own eyes without being under water!I think that would be a great idea ,if people wore 1912 era clothes.Are you saying you a Captain?Iv'e always wanted to go on a ship and talk to a real captain!This is so exciting
What ships were you captaining?British ships?
Did you do the same route as the Titanic did?

Michael- Bye what you said,if they gave her a pointed bow and left the shell exactly the same as Titanic,she may pass.
I have notice all mordern ships have pointed bows.
I always wounded why mordern ships have a pointed bow but can this reason be true aswell?
Is the pointed bow for safty against icebergs,if a ship has no choice but to ram an iceberg the point of the bow is the only part of the bow to hit the iceberg pushing and bracking up the iceberg with out the iceberg touching any other part of the ship.
That's what i thought the pointed bow was meant for.Is there other reasons for a pointed bow?
The reason behind the sharply raked pointed bow is so it won't do as much damage in case of a collision with another ship. It's really next to useless if the collision happens at high speed but at the slower speeds at which a lot of accidents occur, you don't have a gash extending all the way down to below the waterline. With a nearly straight up bow, you would.

A pointed bow is utterly useless when dealing with ice. Take a look at any icebreaker. You'll notice a well rounded bow form which is strengthened and designed to ride up over the ice and to crush it's way down through it by way of sheer mass.

Icebergs? Forget it! You don't break through those, even with explosives.
Hi Alyson!

'Yes' is the answer to all three of your questions but that was a long time ago - I suspect before you were born. The last ship I regularly sailed to New York on passed along the exact same route as Titanic - that was way back in 1962! We sailed from The River Clyde in Scotland - from Liverpool and from Cherbourg in France.

Apart from what Michael was telling you about a ship's bow: it is also pointed to 'split' big waves and swell when she is plowing her way through rough seas in stormy weather.
The bow is also 'flared' that is; it curves out and over- hangs on each side. If there was no overhang, the split wave would try to re-join when the ships bow plunged downward into the trough of the wave. This would mean an awful lot of sea water coming across the forecastle-head deck where all the anchoring machinery is situated. The flare 'thows' the split wave outward and away from the ship thus leaving the deck reasonably dry. Actually, if you have ever seen a farmer ploughing his field- the flare of a ship's bow acts much in the same way as does the blade of his plough when it turns or curls over the soil.
Unlike modern ships, the bow of Titanic did not have much of a 'flare' at all. I suspect her forecastle-deck would have been very wet indeed when heading into huge Atlantic seas during a big winter storm. Probably her sister ships found this to be the case.

Another thing effected by the shape of a ship's bow is speed. The easier a ship 'slices' through the water - the less fuel she needs to use to push the water aside. Thus, a ship with a long, thin pointed bow is able to travel faster than a same-sized ship which is shaped almost like a 'box' and has a big, square bluff bow. Modern Super Tankers are much like the latter although there are a few design 'tricks' which help to compensate.
Hope the foregoing helps with your 'studies'.