Topic: Cruiseliner question (Read 9019 times)

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #25 on:** March 15, 2008, 07:07:53 »

Why isn't "Liverpool Titanic" written on Titanic's stern?

I can't figure out why they left that out in BOTH games...

mvsmith · « **Reply #26 on:** March 15, 2008, 08:37:40 »

It really isnâ€™t that important, since she never visited Liverpool, and probably never would have.
She was an American ship flying a British flag of convenience, so she needed a British port on her stern.
Marty

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2008, 23:17:53 »

White Star Line may well have been owned by America at the time, but it was still a British ship, with British officers, British insurance and under British Board of Trade regulations.

In this day and age of computers, here in Grim Britain, (I assume most/all others are the same) there is only one port of registry- Cardiff (offices located there for political reasons). Any port name painted on a ship now (UK) such as Dover, London, Birmingham (

) is purely for historic/ image reasons.

In the past, boats and ships were all registered at their local port and carried the port registration and port name for identification. And seems WSL was based in liverpool, it seems a good place to register the ship.

Incidentally, why they used Southampton is a mystery to me. Liverpool is much less distance- was Cherbourg REALLY that important to them?

mvsmith · « **Reply #28 on:** April 04, 2008, 00:24:20 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on April 03, 2008, 23:17:53

White Star Line may well have been owned by America at the time, but it was still a British ship, with British officers, British insurance and under British Board of Trade regulations.

...and sunk by the arrogance of a British master, with most of the passengers doomed by British Board of Trade regulations.
What is forgotten today is that there was a bitter Anglo-American dustup at the time over those points. It might have escalated into a â€œshootinâ€™ warâ€ were it not for the intercession of Kaiser Wilhelm.

Where have you been, Stu?
Regards,
Marty

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 04, 2008, 00:41:51 »

I think in fairness, most countries had outdated regulations regarding safety- not just Britain.

Or could the American owners not over countermanded the British based management and insisted on extra safety precautions? No, of course not... All were just concerned about profit- we British don't have a monopoly on screwing things up, remember (although we have perfected it in the past 11 years!)

I think, with respect, that to suggest it might have lead to war is a bit of an exaggeration. I think Mr Ismay and his arousal of suspicion by trying to avoid entering the US is the foundation of this issue- yes, yes, both Britain and US were vying to be the 'official' investigators (no doubt to supress the real dangers facing atlantic shipping)

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #30 on:** April 04, 2008, 00:53:34 »

oh, and a ship IS reffered to by its yard number during construction!

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #31 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:04:22 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 00:53:34

oh, and a ship IS reffered to by its yard number during construction!

But ONLY construction...

Can't imagine this: "Good afternoon Spambot and gentlemen. Welcome aboard todays crossing from Portsmouth to Bilbao onboard yard build number 1290..."

I think the Samaritans must be getting a lot of calls about now- I can't be the only one losing my will to live right now...

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #32 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:24:03 »

if it bothers you that much, I'll delete it.

I was trying to say I'm not one, but seem to be getting there.

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:27:33 »

Good for you. Keep it up. I'm all for people who at least try.

mvsmith · « **Reply #34 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:31:43 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 00:41:51

I think in fairness, most countries had outdated regulations regarding safety- not just Britain.

You are right, Stu, and it didnâ€™t end there. Take, for instance, the operation of Liberty Ships until their hulls rusted through.
Iâ€™m sure J. P. Morgan was happy that he didnâ€™t have to spring for more lifeboats.
The fact that she was American owned, and that American citizens died, was the grounds for Senator Smithâ€™s investigation. It would be too much to expect that either it or the BOT inquiry would be free of national sentiments.

Both inquiries were taken to task by Joseph Conrad in a lengthy essay titled â€œSome Reflections on the Loss of the Titanicâ€ in the English Review of May 1912. If you havenâ€™t read it, I commend it to your attention.
G. B. Shaw also rang in with a shorter opinion dealing more with moral questions than with seamanshipâ€”though I doubt one can entirely separate the two. Itâ€™s in the Daily News of 14 May 1912.

Regards,
Marty

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #35 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:33:54 »

I'm not sure if V-step did enough research: all 4 funnels are equal heights on the Titanic rendering.

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:43:59 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 01:33:54

I'm not sure if V-step did enough research: all 4 funnels are equal heights on the Titanic rendering.

i thought they were anyway- at least that's the way it appears in photos- maybe I'm wrong.... It actually CAN happen

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #37 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:53:16 »

The Liberty ships were only ever intended as short term "****, we need some boats" and the fact that they actually survived for so long and on such intensive work is a credit to their BRITISH designs

oh, ok and good construction in the US... Didn't some of them actually break up whilst quite new, because of light weight welding? But yes, I can see the comparison with Titanic- economy over safety (in this case such action was essential and a calculated risk)

In reality US probably wanted to control it to stop GB saying 'the Americans owned it- it's their fault' and GB wanted control it to stop the US saying 'GB operated it... it's their fault'. I think we should compromise and blame the Isle of Wight for it.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #38 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:54:51 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:43:59

i thought they were anyway- at least that's the way it appears in photos- maybe I'm wrong.... It actually CAN happen

as shown on the world's most accurate models of the ship, there IS a height difference:

In order of shortest to tallest, they are 1st, 2nd, 4th, 3rd

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #39 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:59:40 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 01:54:51

as shown on the world's most accurate models of the ship, there IS a height difference:

In order of shortest to tallest, they are 1st, 2nd, 4th, 3rd

Still not sure http://www.starway.org/Titanic/pictures/Titanic%20BW.gif

Anyway, is it such a big detail?

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #40 on:** April 04, 2008, 02:01:20 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:53:16

The Liberty ships were only ever intended as short term "****, we need some boats" and the fact that they actually survived for so long and on such intensive work is a credit to their BRITISH designs oh, ok and good construction in the US... Didn't some of them actually break up whilst quite new, because of light weight welding? But yes, I can see the comparison with Titanic- economy over safety (in this case such action was essential and a calculated risk)

In reality US probably wanted to control it to stop GB saying 'the Americans owned it- it's their fault' and GB wanted control it to stop the US saying 'GB operated it... it's their fault'. I think we should compromise and blame the Isle of Wight for it.

lol

actually, the only sub-standard part of the Titanic was its expansion joints:

The new sinking theory, made in 2006, suggests the ship broke at a mere 10 or 11 degree angle, far less than the previously suggested 30 degrees.

This new, shallow angle is what most ships face in normal storms, suggesting weak expansion joints.

Sure enough, comparing the wrecks shows that Britannic's expansion joints were stronger than Titanic's, suggesting White Star knew of this structural defficiency.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #41 on:** April 04, 2008, 02:04:16 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on April 04, 2008, 01:59:40

Still not sure http://www.starway.org/Titanic/pictures/Titanic%20BW.gif

Anyway, is it such a big detail?

I can see it... It's slight, but I can see it...

mvsmith · « **Reply #42 on:** April 04, 2008, 08:14:06 »

Titanic first opened up from top down assuming a ^ bend. As her mid section flooded, the crack closed again. This was indicated by the bent and compressed edges at the top of the crack.
Finally, the double bottom snapped apart at the crack, and two short sections of the double bottom separated and fell to the sea floor upside down.
Marty

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #43 on:** April 05, 2008, 01:21:05 »

Quote from: mvsmith on April 04, 2008, 08:14:06

Titanic first opened up from top down assuming a ^ bend. As her mid section flooded, the crack closed again. This was indicated by the bent and compressed edges at the top of the crack.
Finally, the double bottom snapped apart at the crack, and two short sections of the double bottom separated and fell to the sea floor upside down.
Marty

Exactly! Before it failed, the double bottom hull was the onlything holding the 882 foot, 9 inch ship together!

Admiral-of-the-fleet · « **Reply #44 on:** April 07, 2008, 23:53:20 »

Wow!!! Both very informed and knowlegable in a very, in my small mind complicated matter (sinking and structual integrity of the Titanic)!!!! I'm impressed!!!!!

Rgds

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #45 on:** April 08, 2008, 03:54:07 »

Quote from: Admiral-of-the-fleet on April 07, 2008, 23:53:20

Wow!!! Both very informed and knowlegable in a very, in my small mind complicated matter (sinking and structual integrity of the Titanic)!!!! I'm impressed!!!!!

Rgds

Thanks. Some one at the Titanic Museum in Branson, Missouri said I should work there (true story! I went there just over spring break!)

Titanic needs her family. Let's get the RMS Olympic and HMHS Britannic in Ship Sim! or at least SOME other Edwardian ship! Lusitania, anyone?

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 08, 2008, 21:28:02 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on April 04, 2008, 02:01:20

actually, the only sub-standard part of the Titanic was its expansion joints:

And Leonardo dic(*)aprios acting.

*You don't know how close I was to inserting an R in there...

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #47 on:** April 09, 2008, 03:21:27 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on April 08, 2008, 21:28:02

And Leonardo dic(*)aprios acting.

*You don't know how close I was to inserting an R in there...

... and the fact that that movie screws up the disater to no end....

Want to hear my list of greivences?

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #48 on:** April 13, 2008, 16:58:36 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on April 09, 2008, 03:21:27

... and the fact that that movie screws up the disater to no end....

Want to hear my list of greivences?

Any criticisms of that film are totally welcome by me. I think between us we could probably overload Vsteps forum server with negative comments about that dull, absurd film.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #49 on:** April 13, 2008, 23:38:01 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on April 13, 2008, 16:58:36

Any criticisms of that film are totally welcome by me. I think between us we could probably overload Vsteps forum server with negative comments about that dull, absurd film.

LET'S DO IT!

Author Topic: Cruiseliner question (Read 9019 times)

mvsmith

mvsmith

mvsmith

mvsmith