(Very OT) Touring the Titanic
ubiqt...@my-deja.com
Harland & Wolff the shipyards that built the TITANIC has given
redundaceys to about 1700 people. My questions is, if the British
government placed an order with them to build a replica of
the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
take a tour of her if she was to go to your country. If yes how much
would you expect to pay? if you know tell me in £.
Thanks
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D.Brooks
news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> My questions is, if the British
> government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
Jonathan Boyd
cho...@home.spam wrote on 11/3/00 10:31 pm:
Hey! It was a good design. It's not the designers or builders fault that it
was sailed into an iceberg. My grandfather helped build it. Ack, I've broken
my sabbatical now.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Carpe Aptenodytes!
D.Brooks
> >> My questions is, if the British
> >> government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> >> the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> >> take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
> > As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
>
> Hey! It was a good design. It's not the designers or builders fault that
it
> was sailed into an iceberg. My grandfather helped build it. Ack, I've
broken
> my sabbatical now.
From what I understand, the materials engineering and metallurgy of that era
were not up-to-par to withstand collisions that any ship of comparable size
today would just shrug off.
Where can you place blame in a situation like that?
Michael Dean
D.Brooks wrote:
> <ubiqt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > My questions is, if the British
> > government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> > the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> > take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
>
> As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
As long as they don't use the same type of steel you mean. Two of the
greatest sea disasters the sinking of the R.M.S Titanic, and the
destruction of the H.M.S. Hood could be linked to the steel that made up
the hulls. In normal situations the metal is strong as it should be.
However when exposed to extreme cold like the north atlantic the metal
becomes very brittle.
Mike Dean
"Speed is Fine, but Accuracy is Final" Wyatt Earp
Michael Dean
Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> in article lPzy4.28322$t7.17...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com, D.Brooks at
> cho...@home.spam wrote on 11/3/00 10:31 pm:
>
> > <ubiqt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> My questions is, if the British
> >> government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> >> the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> >> take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
> >
> > As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
>
> Hey! It was a good design. It's not the designers or builders fault that it
> was sailed into an iceberg. My grandfather helped build it. Ack, I've broken
> my sabbatical now.
> --
> Jonathan
> AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
>
> Carpe Aptenodytes!
Good design bad steel I forgot to mention in my last posting that the iron ore
used to make the steel used to make the Titanic and Hood came the from the same
mine. and you mister Boyd should already know what happened to H.M.S. Hood.
Mike Dean
"Speed is Fine, But Accuracy is Final" Wyatt Earp
Talya Noire
> in article lPzy4.28322$t7.17...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com, D.Brooks at
> cho...@home.spam wrote on 11/3/00 10:31 pm:
>
> > <ubiqt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> My questions is, if the British
> >> government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> >> the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> >> take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
> >
> > As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
>
> Hey! It was a good design. It's not the designers or builders fault that it
> was sailed into an iceberg. My grandfather helped build it. Ack, I've broken
> my sabbatical now.
> --
> Jonathan
> AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
>
> Carpe Aptenodytes!
Well, IIRC there were some imperfections in the Iron that made it so fragile in
the cold water. But it is true there are several things they could have done to
save themselves. Enough lifeboats regardless of the negativity cosmetically,
for starts. But even if they had hit the iceberg dead on, the first and MAYBE
the second cargo hold would have been sealed off and she would have stayed
afloat until the Carpathia arrived. OR even OPEN all the water tight
compartments so that the water settled across the entire base. Instead of
pulling her down by the head. It would have saved them time, and many lives.
Also having BINOCULARS! That would have been good! :c) And these are all
facts based on research books I have read. Not on the movie. Ive been
fascinated with the Titanic since I was a kid! Id pay through the nose to go
2.5 miles below the surface to see the real thing before the salt water melts it
all away!!
Ok ok. Ill step off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening! :c)
--
Talya, Vice President - "The Club", Gung-Ho Twin #1, Weirdo Extrordinaire! ICQ
# 26250056
"Oh, ye bloody think so? I'll make you feel the f*cking Force, pal!"
AFS Emperor's Will
http://www.emperorswill.pyar.com
Galactic Empire TIE Fleet
http://www.kurikatafleet.pyar.com/
AFS Galactic Empire
http://www.galacticempire.net
~Rising Storm~
http://home.att.net/~imperial-warlord
Commander Thelea
Dean <tru...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>D.Brooks wrote:
>
>> <ubiqt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > My questions is, if the British
>> > government placed an order with them to build a replica of
>> > the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here
pay to
>> > take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
>>
>> As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
>
Two of the
>greatest sea disasters the sinking of the R.M.S Titanic, and the
>destruction of the H.M.S. Hood could be linked to the steel
that made up
>the hulls. In normal situations the metal is strong as it
should be.
>However when exposed to extreme cold like the north atlantic
the metal
>becomes very brittle.
>
>"Speed is Fine, but Accuracy is Final" Wyatt Earp
>
>
>
HMS Hood was not sunk because of Metallurgy problems; It was
sunk because of a lack of Armour over it's magazines.
So was HMS Invincible, HMS Indefetigable, and HMS Queen Mary,
the three British Battlecruisers lost at the battle of Jutland,
or Skaggerak for your Germans out there.
Battlecruisers were designed for speed, not slugging it out
with Battleships; Their armour was designed to defend against
the 8.2 inch shells of German Armoured Cruisers of the Great War
era; The 15 inch shells of the Bismark sliced through Hood's
magazine armour and ignited the magazines. Boom. They actually
had predicted potentially problems with weak magazine armour in
the twenties on the Hood, but they never sent the ship in for
the planned refit to had more magazine armour that would have
prevented the fatal hit.
The Battlecruiser was doomed because it was used in a role it
was not designed for. Instead of killing cruisers with them,
they sent them up against Battleships, and they died because of
that. Of course, they British Admiralty couldn't have sent the
new Prince of Wales with it's malfunctioning electronics up
against Bismark alone, or even with the four destroyers,
Norfolk, and Sheffield (The two Cruisers). And.. They had
thought the three Battlecruisers lost at Jutland were lost
because of "Flash" and cordite fires, and that they had
corrected that problem. In reality, it was a design problem;
they simply didn't have the armour to defend against Battleship
shells.
Marina O'Leary
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Weyoun the Dancing Borg
--
"The whole concept of celebrity pisses me off. While I'm not a celebrity,
it's such a weird concept that society has cooked up for us. Astronauts and
teachers are much more amazing than actors."
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
To reply to me, click here: wey...@btinternet.com
or remove ".DESPAM" from my reply address.
Michael Dean <tru...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:38CADBEE...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
>
>
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
> > in article lPzy4.28322$t7.17...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com, D.Brooks at
> > cho...@home.spam wrote on 11/3/00 10:31 pm:
> >
> > > <ubiqt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >> My questions is, if the British
> > >> government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> > >> the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> > >> take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
> > >
> > > As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
> >
> > Hey! It was a good design. It's not the designers or builders fault that
it
> > was sailed into an iceberg. My grandfather helped build it. Ack, I've
broken
> > my sabbatical now.
> > --
> > Jonathan
> > AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
> >
> > Carpe Aptenodytes!
>
> Good design bad steel I forgot to mention in my last posting that the iron
ore
> used to make the steel used to make the Titanic and Hood came the from the
same
> mine. and you mister Boyd should already know what happened to H.M.S.
Hood.
>
> Mike Dean
> "Speed is Fine, But Accuracy is Final" Wyatt Earp
>
>
Whitenoise
really small!!
"Michael Dean" <tru...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:38CAD877...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
>
>
> D.Brooks wrote:
>
> > <ubiqt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > My questions is, if the British
> > > government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> > > the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> > > take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
> >
> > As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
>
> As long as they don't use the same type of steel you mean. Two of the
> greatest sea disasters the sinking of the R.M.S Titanic, and the
> destruction of the H.M.S. Hood could be linked to the steel that made up
> the hulls. In normal situations the metal is strong as it should be.
> However when exposed to extreme cold like the north atlantic the metal
> becomes very brittle.
>
> Mike Dean
> "Speed is Fine, but Accuracy is Final" Wyatt Earp
>
Deimos Anomaly
OR even OPEN all the water tight
> compartments so that the water settled across the entire base.
Instead of
> pulling her down by the head. It would have saved them time, and
many lives.
This is a misconception which I have seen several times, but which has
been prooved to be untrue. Had the watertight doors been left open, the
water would _not_ have flooded evenly over the entire ship. It would
have taken quite a while to reach the stern, 800 feet or so away. This
would mean that there would still be a large buildup in the starboard
bow, causing the bow to be lower, _and_ a severe list to starboard. and
since water naturally flows to the lowest point, it wouldn't go
anywhere else; if it did it would be defying gravity by flowing uphill.
A recent simulation has shown that the Titanic would have keeled over
more and more to starboard, and eventually capsized, at a considerably
earlier time than she actually sank. Much less people would in fact
have been saved.
--
There is an old proverb which says... "Be careful what you wish for,
for it may come true. And if your wish is for immortality, it is
something you will have to live with for a very, very long time!"
ubiqt...@my-deja.com
Talya Noire <Talya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
> > in article lPzy4.28322$t7.17...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com, D.Brooks at
> > cho...@home.spam wrote on 11/3/00 10:31 pm:
> >
> > > news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >> My questions is, if the British
> > >> government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> > >> the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> > >> take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
> > >
> > > As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
> >
> > was sailed into an iceberg. My grandfather helped build it. Ack, I've broken
> > my sabbatical now.
> > --
> > Jonathan
> > AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
> >
> > Carpe Aptenodytes!
>
> the cold water. But it is true there are several things they could have done to
> save themselves. Enough lifeboats regardless of the negativity cosmetically,
> for starts. But even if they had hit the iceberg dead on, the first and MAYBE
> the second cargo hold would have been sealed off and she would have stayed
> compartments so that the water settled across the entire base. Instead of
> pulling her down by the head. It would have saved them time, and many lives.
> facts based on research books I have read. Not on the movie. Ive been
> fascinated with the Titanic since I was a kid! Id pay through the nose to go
> 2.5 miles below the surface to see the real thing before the salt water melts it
> all away!!
>
> Ok ok. Ill step off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening! :c)
> --
> Talya, Vice President - "The Club", Gung-Ho Twin #1, Weirdo Extrordinaire! ICQ
> # 26250056
>
> "Oh, ye bloody think so? I'll make you feel the f*cking Force, pal!"
>
> AFS Emperor's Will
> http://www.emperorswill.pyar.com
> Galactic Empire TIE Fleet
> http://www.kurikatafleet.pyar.com/
> AFS Galactic Empire
> http://www.galacticempire.net
> ~Rising Storm~
> http://home.att.net/~imperial-warlord
>
>
The other year (1997 i think) when they went down there anfd brought up
a massive 20 ton piece of the hull, they did some test on it and some
rivets. The piece of hull they cleaned up and tested to see how much
force would be needed to break it, it finally broke whenb about the
equivelent of a ton was used, so even if this is not good by modern day
standards its bloody good for an 85 year old bit of metal. The checked
the rivets for the amount of slag content, some had a high content but
i think, if i can remember, the majoraty the check(which was nowhere
near the 3 million in its hull) had the right content of slag in it.
They concluded that the metal used in the ship was not to blame.
If they made it today, they would of use modern steel. The Titanic hull
plates were 1 inch thick, todays hulls average about 5/16 of an inch
i think.
The reason it sank was the iceberg buckled the plates and sheared to rivet
heads off, causing little holes along 300 feet. That is the genrally
excepted way, if you believe that it was the Titanic and not the Olympic that
sank that night.
To my original question, i personaly think that the majoraty of people
would want to take a look around a replica built Titanic, it would
certainly make the money back that it took to build.
Lee
Deimos Anomaly
> To my original question, i personaly think that the majoraty of people
> would want to take a look around a replica built Titanic, it would
> certainly make the money back that it took to build.
Except that it couldn't be made the same down to the smallest detail,
because it would then flout modern shipping laws. (Some of which were,
Ironically, brought in because of the original Titanic's sinking) For
example, the lifeboats couldn't be on the top deck, as they were on the
original, because that would make them too high for modern regulations.
Also, there aren't a lot of riveters around anymore, so a riveted hull
is out. (3000000 (three million) rivets in original.) Then there is the
method of propulsion - somehow I doubt you'd find lots of guys willing
to shovel coal for hours on end these days. Coal fired steam engines
are an inneficcient method of propulsion anyway; simply look at a
schematic of the Titanic and a modern ships side by side, you will see
that practically the entire length of the ship (Titanic) in the lower
decks was given over to propulsive equipment, while for a modern ship
the diesel engines take up _relatively_ little space. Also it would
have to have some things on the bridge different too, the replica would
need radar and GPS equipment. While most of the other differences could
be disguised, but radar would be a problem, where exactly would you put
one of those rotating rotor thingies, that it wouldn't look out of
place on the Titanic? Also, think of the vast amount of wood in the
posh fittings on the original Titanic, you couldn't have that now or
you'd have every environmental group in the world after your blood
because of cutting down so many trees just for the fittings of one ship.
With all that said, several copanies have said they will do a replica
Titanic. But it likely would not help Harland & Wolff anyway, since it
would probably be built in Korea or somewhere where ships are cheap.
Unless H&W, who have the original plans, refused to release them unless
it was built there (Belfast). That's about the only bargaining chip
they would have.
Even if it was built, why would it nescesarily be so successful?
Intrest would be high at first, but once the novelty was gone, what
would there be to attract people to the ship? 1912 fittings and
facilities. People would not want that. Also, some people might not
want to sail in it, there's probably quite a lot who wouldn't even set
foot on it at the wharf:- superstition can be a funny thing.
--
There is an old proverb which says... "Be careful what you wish for,
for it may come true. And if your wish is for immortality, it is
something you will have to live with for a very, very long time!"
Allen W. McDonnell
Deimos Anomaly <sam...@jamieson-03.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8afn9k$mso$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Talya Noire wrote:
>
> OR even OPEN all the water tight
> > compartments so that the water settled across the entire base.
> Instead of
> > pulling her down by the head. It would have saved them time, and
> many lives.
>
> been prooved to be untrue. Had the watertight doors been left open, the
> water would _not_ have flooded evenly over the entire ship. It would
> have taken quite a while to reach the stern, 800 feet or so away. This
> would mean that there would still be a large buildup in the starboard
> bow, causing the bow to be lower, _and_ a severe list to starboard. and
> since water naturally flows to the lowest point, it wouldn't go
> anywhere else; if it did it would be defying gravity by flowing uphill.
> A recent simulation has shown that the Titanic would have keeled over
> more and more to starboard, and eventually capsized, at a considerably
> earlier time than she actually sank. Much less people would in fact
> have been saved.
>
compartments on the opposite end and side of the ship to prevent it from
listing. With the stern compartments flooded to prevent the Titanic from
settling by the head she would have stayed afloat and been abble to sail
herself on to NY where she could have been drydocked and repaired.
Sad really that they didn;t have the pumps they needed to counterflood, or
even remote control sea cocks to at least partly flood them and slow the
rate of settling by the bow.
--
Life is what YOU make of it, so why are you sitting there reading this?
Allen W. McDonnell
AIM Tanada1945, YIM Tanada1945
ICQ 44757320
Email Tan...@provide.spam.net
Lame home page http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1671/index.html
Albert Cira
Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:
>
> what happened to it?
it was sunk by a german battleship
>
> --
> "The whole concept of celebrity pisses me off. While I'm not a celebrity,
> it's such a weird concept that society has cooked up for us. Astronauts and
> teachers are much more amazing than actors."
>
> Joseph Gordon-Levitt
>
> To reply to me, click here: wey...@btinternet.com
>
> or remove ".DESPAM" from my reply address.
>
> Michael Dean <tru...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:38CADBEE...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> >
> > > in article lPzy4.28322$t7.17...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com, D.Brooks at
> > > cho...@home.spam wrote on 11/3/00 10:31 pm:
> > >
> > > > <ubiqt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8aedia$qvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > >> My questions is, if the British
> > > >> government placed an order with them to build a replica of
> > > >> the TITANIC down to the smallest detail, would anyone here pay to
> > > >> take a tour of her if she was to go to your country.
> > > >
> > > > As long as the damn thing isn't built the same way...
> > >
> > > Hey! It was a good design. It's not the designers or builders fault that
> it
> > > was sailed into an iceberg. My grandfather helped build it. Ack, I've
> broken
> > > my sabbatical now.
> > > --
> > > Jonathan
> > > AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
> > >
> > > Carpe Aptenodytes!
> >
> > Good design bad steel I forgot to mention in my last posting that the iron
> ore
> > used to make the steel used to make the Titanic and Hood came the from the
> same
> > mine. and you mister Boyd should already know what happened to H.M.S.
> Hood.
> >
> > Mike Dean
> > "Speed is Fine, But Accuracy is Final" Wyatt Earp
> >
> >