Titanic vs Modern cruise ships

  • Thread starter Nuno Viriato R R Cruz
  • Start date

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 20, 2003
4
0
131
They are really, floating condominiums, just as Tracy said!

A somewhat 'shocking' thing: modern ships do not 'born' as a structure. they are pre fabricated pieces put together and cemented! They don't have the skeleton other ships had, etc.. And they are not launched!! as I saw on a QM2 site illustrating a picture: QM2 just after 'floatation'(?)!!! I know I'm misspelling the word, but I think you know what I mean...

Where are those great launches with or without the champagne!??!!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
829
563
Easley South Carolina
Actually, the sections are welded and not cemented and they do indeed have the framing (Skeleton) that the older ships had. What happens however is that each section is prefabricated then lowered into the graving dock to be joined with the rest of the structure.

The use of inclined ways has been on the way out for a very long time now.
 
A

Alicia Windsor

Guest
Tracy got it on the nose. When my parents talk about going on a cruise, I can't help but make a face. Some of the new cruise ships are just bulky and Vegas-tacky for me - inside, that is. That's what comes of putting passenger capacity and comfort ahead of aesthetics.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
338
433
Alicia seems to share my taste. I found SuperStar Virgo reasonably attractive externally. She's well maintained and it's good to see a ship with not a trace of rust. She's way ahead of the car carriers and sheep transports that frequent our waters.

Inside, it's another thing. The interior was shown on TV and garish and vulgar were words that came to mind. Vegas was another. Mind you, there were some shockers in the old days too. Some of the old German ships look like a baroque palace on steroids. Our old friend Titanic was restrained and modest by comparison.
 

Mike McMillan

Member
Apr 30, 2003
23
0
131
Are there any obscure old ships out there that you can still get the flavor and beauty of the old days? Since I don't know of any ocean-going ones, I hope to one day take a trip on the cosy, elegant Delta Queen paddleboat on the Mississippi. It was built between 1924-1927. There are some newer, bigger sisters, but I have no interest in them. This is the real thing, a piece of history, not a fake modern version.

Check out the Grand Staircase:
http://www.deltaqueen.com/

Here's some more pictures of her public rooms:
http://www.steamboats.org/gal-dq.htm

"The Delta Queen and her identical twin the Delta King - called the million dollar boats - were fabricated from 1924 to 1927 on the River Clyde at the Isherwood Yard in Glasgow, Scotland, (other sources claim William Denny & Brothers Ltd., Dumbarton, Scotland) and assembled that same year at Banner Island shipyard in Stockton, CA. The machinery was built by William Denny & Brothers Ltd., Dumbarton, Scotland. The paddlewheel shaft and the cranks were forged at the Krupp Stahlwerke AG, Germany. The boats were completed on May 20, 1927."

Maybe for our 50th birthdays next year? ;o)

The modern Mississippi Queen has re-created a fancy old-fashioned look to some degree, but as you will see if you click on that first link, it starts to get that yucky modern condo look.

--Mike Mc
 
B

Brent DeFatta

Guest
To All-
I agree with all of you, the older ships are much more elegant and majestic. These new ships are just the opposite, how could you compare the two.

Brent D.
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
11
233
The new ships have all no flavour at all. There is no impresiveness due to the lack of mainly, the funnels. The overall shape is also not nice at all.
 
Jun 30, 2005
10
0
131
I agree that todays cruise ships lack a lot of the beauty that older liners had. However, good looks was probably not the reason for building long sleek ships: it was speed and stability over the Atlantic. It made good sense then, but not if you are designing a ship that will cruise slowly in the Caribbean.
A long but not so wide ship will cut thru the water with less resistance and can cut thru waves making it more stable. A cruise ship is mainly built for comfort and in smooth waters it benefits from greater with.
I'm more concerned with the fact that many cruise ships look like Disneyland mixed with Las vegas inside.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,429
1,723
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Today's cruise ship sail as fast as the Olympic class ships of the early 20th century, a little over 20 knots. They have large bulbous bows, props on pods, and stabilizers to cut down on rolling. They usually do not have "lifeboats" for all on board. The biggest difference has to be in weight to volume ratio. For Titanic it was 1.1:1. For today's cruise ships it is just under 0.5:1. Their densities are less than 1/2. The risk is in unanticipated and unknown loads that would be created on these ships should there be major flooding.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
829
563
Easley South Carolina
>>However, good looks was probably not the reason for building long sleek ships: it was speed and stability over the Atlantic.<<

Don't forget other considerations. The longer sleeker look if any...and not all ships of that era could be described that way...were also due to the fact that space had to be provided for cargo. Form was a matter of function and the Olympic Class liners were no exception to that rule. Check out the Titanic's deck plans and the deck plans of any other ship of that era and you'll see that there was space provided to carry it. This was utterly necessery as commercial aviation was little more then a twinkling dream in the eyes of a few far sighted people. Ships were literally the only way to cross for anything animate or inanimate.

Cruise ships have no need for any such provisions so a lot more space is set aside for cabins and public spaces.
 

Noel F. Jones

Member
May 14, 2002
857
5
183
"This was utterly necessery as commercial aviation was little more then a twinkling dream in the eyes of a few far sighted people. Ships were literally the only way to cross for anything animate or inanimate."

They still are. I understand a fair approximate statistic has it that taking all non-terrestrial goods-in-transit by weight some 95 percent still arrives by sea. The difference is that these days all seaborne 'general' arrives in boxes and the rest in bulk carriers.

Noel
 
Aug 8, 2004
160
0
181
"Long, lean and muscular" That's how I onced described the Olympic-class. Interestingly enough, upon describing the hull and lines of Titanic to my friend's father, he was shocked to realize how "thin" the hull was, ninety-two feet, six inches to 882 feet, nine inches (or eight inches for those who like that figure better.) He said, "Ninety-two feet? That's only home to first...."
 
J

Jeffrey Beaudry

Guest
Just out of curiosity, what did you mean Samuel by cruise ships not having enough lifeboats for all on board?
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
829
563
Easley South Carolina
What Samuel said was "They usually do not have "lifeboats" for all on board." he was right. There's only so much space and weight available to work with and it's not practical to provide lifeboats for every single person aboard. The shortfall is made up by way of inflatable liferafts. The boats being for the passengers and the liferafts for the crew that can't be accomadated on the boats.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
338
433
Jeffrey. to enlarge on that a bit, the rules allow passenger ships to carry lifeboats sufficient for only 75% of those on board. If this is done, there must be liferafts sufficient for 50%. Cruise ships often take advantage of this rule. One reason for is that the ships are too short to carry "boats for all". Many cruise ships are shorter than Titanic, even if they carry more passengers.
 
J

Jeffrey Beaudry

Guest
Sorry about that. When he said lifeboats, I thought he was including the inflatable ones. At least we won't be having another problem like the Titanic had.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
829
563
Easley South Carolina
>>At least we won't be having another problem like the Titanic had.<<

Don't be so sure about that. Adaquate lifeboat provisions hasn't been much of a problem in shipping casualties in and of itself. The problem has been whether or not they were usable after the accident itself. The Morro Castle was unable to deploy all of her boats because of the poor condition of the davits, and half of the boats on the Andrea Doria were rendered useless when the ship listed to far to starboard.

Lifeboats for all ain't quite the cure all they're made out to be.
 

George Heiss

Member
Aug 1, 2005
82
1
158
NY
Wow, did you see those interior pictures Mike M pointed out of the those riverboats above? NAWICE! Don't get me started on riverboats. Absolutely LOVE riverboats. But of course...they are steamers
happy.gif
! Can talk about them on end.

Geo
 

Aly Jones

Member
Nov 22, 2008
1,173
70
183
Australia
The Bows are different aswell.There is much more bow space on the Olympic class liners than modern ships. These modern ships bridges are almost on top of the bow these days!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads