Titanic VS Queen Mary


A

April Cooper

Guest
Hi everyone.... hope your all doing well! I recently drove to Los Angeles and saw the Queen Mary for the 1st time in my life and was a bit shocked to learn that the Queen Mary was about 136 feet LONGER than the Titanic! To be honest I was shocked cause for some reason I was under the impression that the Titanic was the bigger ship between the 2. I have been collecting original Titanic memoribillia for several years now and when I sat there in person with The Queen Mary sitting there before me and then learned that it was larger than my favorite ship, The Titanic... I was a bit disapointed! I know that sounds silly but after all the old footage , etc I had seen of the Titanic I guess I thought it would be bigger!
happy.gif
A man I work for said I need to remember that Titanic was the LARGEST ship of her time and ALOT of time has past since she sank... haha I guess cause I am partial to the Titanic I expected her to be BIGGER than any other ship..ever...period! Well anyway thats it for this post. Was anyone else out there aware that the Titanic was smaller than the Queen Mary???
Thanks for letting me vent!!
Take care all my fellow " Titanicans "
April
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
835
563
Easley South Carolina
I knew about it.
happy.gif


What's more, if you go to the Maritime Matters site that Erik Wood and myself use all the time, you'll see news clips on existing and building vessels which are even larger. The Queen Mary II is supposed to be on the order of 150,000 tons. Compared to the floating condominiums which are proposed, even that ship will look like a bathtub toy.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
D

Deleted member 173198

Guest
Hello April!

I was fascinated to read your thread giving your own impetus about this once beautiful ocean liner, the R.M.S Queen Mary . From my own personally experience, I already learned from my late grandfather that the Mary was much bigger in size than the Titanic.

The next occasion occurred for me was back in 1967. At the time I had no idea that Cunard was selling off some of the family silver, and quite honestly for would-be eight year old, I hadn't the slightest clue what all the fuss was about. However, I can still recollect that massive black hull sailing by one of Southampton's most prodigious landmarks-The Royal Prier.

Here's another little story. During the late sixities the two Sister Queens who were always referred to by most Sotonians as the Mary and the Lizy, managed to attract many visits to Southampton. They travelled far and wide to get a glimpse or they just simply took photograph's, no doubt, to increase their photo albums.
However, in 1966 and I think this was the last Great Seaman Strike of that year, but I can still remember picturing not only the Mary and Lizy, but also the S.S.United States and France which as we know, her new title today is the Norway. All four liners were neatly line up along the Western side of the Docks. For a photographer that is the perfect image to possess in a lifetime.

In many ways I wish those day's would come back, sadly they won't!

Perhaps I might suggest April you obtain the book called: The Mary, The Inevitable Ship, written by Neil Potter & Jack Frost. First published in 1961.
This book is highly recommendable, and is full of compulsive reading.

Regards-Andrew W.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
338
433
April, the supposed exceptional size of Titanic is part of the legend. In fact she would have been the biggest ship afloat only until May 23rd 1912 when Imperator was launched.

As to modern ships, the largest ship afloat is the tanker Jahre Viking. At just over 1,500 feet long, she could take Titanic along for a dinghy.
 

Nigel Bryant

Member
Jan 14, 2001
532
7
263
Wellington, New Zealand
Looking at a scale size comparison of the Queen Mary and the Titanic, I printed this three years ago (I do not know if the website is still active: www.queenmary.org/qvvtit.html)

From the diagram of both the Queen Mary and the Titanic in comparing the length from end to end, the Titanic's prow stops at the start of the Queen's forward well-deck. The Queen Mary was 140 feet longer than Titanic was.

But size does not matter, Titanic has got a nicer proportioned hull, a simple super structure. She is a good looking ship in my point of view. I do not like the Queen's bridge, it looks to big, and just aft of the Queen's third funnel there is heaps of deck space, it looks like there should be another extra funnel. I like the four funnel stackers the best.
happy.gif


Regards,

Nigel
 
Apr 7, 2001
1,052
6
233
April,

I too, was a bit surprised to find the Queen Mary was bigger than Titanic the first time I visited the Queen Mary. But no matter how much bigger any ship can be compared to Titanic, no ship could ever compete with her grandeur.

Sincerely,

Teri
 

Adam Leet

Member
May 18, 2001
346
6
183
I think Thomas Bonsall summed it up best when he said it was his personal bias that the Olympic-class liners were the most aesthetically beautiful ships built. The Queen Mary, while impressive in size, is not graceful. The Olympic-class really were the "last of the lean yacht-like racers and the first floating palaces", to use a famous quote.

As for the Queen Mary 2, judging from the illustrations being presented by Cunard, I think it is a bit of a shame that they are not making more of an attempt to return to some of the old configurations of classic liners. In my opinion, QM2 is simply an enlarged QE2.


Adam
 

Dave Hudson

Member
Apr 25, 2001
503
7
183
April,

A ship's size isn't determined in length, it's determined in gross tonnage (which actually deals with cubic space instead of weight).

Titanic----46,328 gross tons
Queen Mary-81,235 gross tons

You may be interested to know that even though the Queen Mary was nearly twice the size of the Titanic, she wasn't even the largest ship of the day! At the time of her maiden voyage, a last minute addition to the French giant Normandie made the Queen Mary the 2nd largest in the world. The Normandie burned at her New York pier in 1942, but by that time, the Queen Elizebeth (the Queen Mary's slghtly larger sister) was underway, making the Queen Mary an eternal runnerup. Cunard preferred this situation, because that way they had the world's largest ship and the world's fastest ship as running mates. It has been said that the QE could have easily broken the QM's speed record, but that company officials forbid it because of thier ingenious marketing campaign.

Dave G.,

Technically, the Titanic would have remained the record holder for another year until the Imperator was finished. At the time of her launch, Imperator's hull wasn't even 40,000 tons yet.

David
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
338
433
You can slice it and dice it how you like. The only thing special about Titanic was that she sank on her maiden voyage with a great loss of life. Other than that, she was just one ship in the long series of passenger liners and not an exceptionally luxurious, large or technically advanced one at that.

As to appearance, that's very much in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'd vote for Normandie in the beauty contest.
 

Eric Sauder

Member
Nov 12, 2000
403
15
263
Teri:

"But no matter how much bigger any ship can be compared to Titanic, no ship could ever compete with her grandeur."

Not even her nearly identical sister ship Olympic? Or her "new, improved" sister Britannic? What "grandeur" did Titanic have exactly that the other two (or many other ships) didn't have?

As Dave Gittens perfectly pointed out:

"The only thing special about Titanic was that she sank on her maiden voyage with a great loss of life. Other than that, she was just one ship in the long series of passenger liners and not an exceptionally luxurious, large or technically advanced one at that."

I'd appreciate it, Teri, if you would give me a few examples of exactly why you think Titanic was "grand" (the sinking aside).

Eric Sauder
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,304
146
338
I must say that I am between both extremes — not referring to anybody in this discussion, but elsewhere there are those who go for the mythical ‘greatest ever built’ or the opposite ‘normal 45,000-ton boring liner.’

To say Titanic was not the largest ever built is quite true, but it would be wrong to say she was not large because at the time (1911/12) with Olympic she represented a huge size increase, from Mauretania’s roughly 31,937 gross tons to Olympic’s 45,324 gross tons and Titanic’s 46,328 gross tons. In time, she has become small, but at the time she was anything but.

Likewise, I agree that there is nothing special about a service speed of twenty-one knots or Olympic’s record 25.1 knots of August 1914 (see David Hudson’s post in the speed discussion); even at the time, Mauretania was clearly ahead, with a service speed of twenty-five and a maximum of thirty-one knots which I believe she briefly attained in old age.

But surely it is wrong to state that she was not especially luxurious: it depends on your exact definition of ‘luxurious’ but by April 1912 standards Titanic was surely one of and perhaps even the most luxurious afloat. Such things range from marble sinks in the first class suites to the widest beds afloat, to sidewalk cafés, Turkish and electric baths, swimming pool and squash court, as well as a cavernous first class reception room and numerous other features. Of course, Adriatic I believe had a swimming pool and Turkish bath, while Olympic had most of Titanic’s luxuries, but I do not know of any other vessels that came close to matching their facilities at the time of their launchings and initial service periods. On the other hand, do we define ‘luxurious’ as to the size and scale of public rooms rather than the quality and quantity of facilities and innovations?

Best regards,

Mark.
 

Dave Hudson

Member
Apr 25, 2001
503
7
183
In my opinion, there are three different types of liners: those built before WWI; those built between the wars; and those built after WWII.

The graetest liner pre-WWI was the Vaterland (although I prefer Imperator's pool).

The greatest between the wars (and possibly of all time) was the Normandie.

The greatest post-WWII was the France.


Getting back to the Queen Mary, her fame as one of the most beuatiful ships afloat is a rather modern concept. At the time of her debut, she was widely reguarded as a bulky, overgrown Aquitanina. She was the first superliner after the Normandie, which was a tough act to follow. The public had just been shown "the ship of tomorrow" and some of the most spacious and impressive interiors ever and the the newest competition was, for lack of a better word, dowdy. A critic of the day wrote about the plastic flooring in the 1st Class Dining Room, remarking that it looked like an elegantly dresses Duchess wearing tennis shoes (he conveniantly forgot to mention that the Normandie's Dining Room had the same flooring
happy.gif
).
It wasn't until the fifties that the Queens' extensive wood panelling was fully appriciated. Unfortunatly, the Queen Elizabeth never gained the loyal following that her older, smaller sister enjoyed. The Mary was the first and the most celebrated, and thus got all the fame. Undoubtedly, the Titanic would have suffered the same neglected image had she not have sunk.

David
 
Apr 7, 2001
1,052
6
233
Hello Eric,

For me, the thing that Titanic had that other ships (including Olympic and Britannic) didn't have was a ship full of famous/wealthy and immigrant people.

It was the people aboard her who made Titanic grand. Many people aboard her weren't all ordinary, and many were quite wealthy. There were also many immigrants who had hoped for a better life, which made Titanic all the more interesting to me as well. These two pieces add spice to a voyage, especially, a maiden voyage, in my opinion.

The Queen Mary had wealthy people sail her at some point in time as well, such as Liberace, but I don't think the Queen Mary had a "party" of wealthy people sailing on her all at the same time like Titanic did. It was that "party" of wealthy and immigrant mixture that gave Titanic her spice.

Sincerely,

Teri
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,304
146
338
Have you seen Olympic's June 1920 Westbound list? Packed full of every famous type you can imagine, 2,249 passengers! As is every list I have.

Best regards,

Mark.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
338
433
Teri, the famous passenger list is another part of the legend. Before air travel everybody simply had to go by sea and many made Titanic's crowd look quite modest. Some booked a dozen or so rooms. The Duchess of Windsor used to have her suite painted to her specifications. Even the luggage carried grew, if anything. As late as the 1960s the German singer Christa Ludwig took 23 pieces of luggage. I wonder how Titanic's passenger list would compare with a Concorde list from the 90s. How does Bill Gates get around?
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,304
146
338
I don't see it as being 'part of the legend' but I do believe that the passenger list was a very impressive one. In terms of numbers, 1,316 is not excellent, but it's hardly a bad one either considering the time and the coal strike, etc. The sheer number of famous first class passengers does seem unusual to me, however. I forget which source it was, but I do recall it being said in a recent publication that the list may have been unique in transatlantic travel for the sheer number of millionaires aboard.

Best regards

Mark.
 
Apr 7, 2001
1,052
6
233
Dave Gittens,

I don't refute and while it is indeed impressive that the Duchess of Windsor used to have her suite painted to her specifications (of which where can it be found) and Christa Ludwig took 23 pieces of luggage (of which where can it be found) with her, again, Titanic had a ship full of the wealthy and immigrants all on the same voyage, a maiden voyage at that.

A Concorde list in the 90's might compare significantly if one were to gather many of the very rich and famous and also many immigrants searching for a better life and put them all on a brand new Concorde destined for an extreme hurricane, crash it and have very few survive.

How does Bill Gates travel? I have no idea how the chap travels. My guess would be by private jet.

Thanks for the info on Duchess of Windsor and Christa Ludwig.

Mark,

"The sheer number of famous first class passengers does seem unusual to me, however. I forget which source it was, but I do recall it being said in a recent publication that the list may have been unique in transatlantic travel for the sheer number of millionaires aboard."

If you could recall that source I'd be forever grateful, as I'd like to add it to my library and collection. Hope you find it.

Thanks for the info.

Teri
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,304
146
338

Quote:

Her first class passenger list, however, which included John Jacob Astor, one of America's wealthiest men, was remarkable and may well be unsurpassed in the annals of ocean travel. This was the era when wealth equalled celebrity and the Titanic's maiden voyage had clearly attracted an unusual number of the transatlantic elite.





Source: 'Lost Liners' pages 84/5. Madison Press 1997, by Ballard, Marschall, Archbold. Proof-read, contributions, etc. by Eric Sauder, Simon Mills...

Covers Lusitania to Queen Elizabeth and onwards in some detail.
 

Dave Hudson

Member
Apr 25, 2001
503
7
183
Was the passenger list really that special? In my opinion, there were only seven people on that ship who were truly famous: the Astors, the Duff Gordons, Mr. Guggenheim, Archie Butt, and the Countess of Rothes. Before you studied the Titanic, had you ever heard of Ryerson, Harris, and Widener? Unless you live in their hometown, probably not. Some may consider Molly Brown to be a celeb, but that is only true of the Molly of Hollywood. The Margaret of 1912 was socially recognized in Denver and the Western US, but the East Coast knew relativly little about her.
Titanic's list was certainly one of the more star-studded of the day, but there were few international celebrities. Most of Titanic's elite were primarily socialites and not neccesarily famous. For instance, the Thayers were well known in Philidelphia, but thier fame was unknown abroad or in the West.
Granted, seven celebrities is a large number to us, but in 1912, society was a very tight-knit group. The famous travelled in packs and would usually coordinate to be on the same ship. This meant that every so often, a knot of celebrities would appear on board a given superliner. Some knots were bigger and some smaller, and Titanic had a fair sized one on that trip. What is impressive is that so many famous people were going to America instead of to Europe. Spring was usually the time that America's rich were heading abroad for summer vacations. Had she have left in the fall, there would have been many more millionaires aboard returning home.
As a final point, we should remember that most of the "celebrities" often associated with the Titanic weren't well known until the Titanic sank. The Duff Gordons' fame increased exponentially after the controversy of the 5 pounds. Ismay had the same problem.

David
 

Similar threads

Similar threads