Topic: Titanic II (Read 54789 times)

Rbsanford · « **Reply #50 on:** March 02, 2013, 02:26:35 »

But why do they even have the old bridge in the first place? It's not like passengers will be going there (except on tours maybe) and it interrupts the view in the modern bridge.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #51 on:** March 02, 2013, 04:09:10 »

Quote from: Rbsanford on March 02, 2013, 02:26:35

But why do they even have the old bridge in the first place? It's not like passengers will be going there (except on tours maybe) and it interrupts the view in the modern bridge.

They may very well offer tours of the bridge. What's more, what else are they going to put in that space? A recreation of the traditional controls seems like an excellent space filler!

Captain Cadet · « **Reply #52 on:** March 02, 2013, 21:14:06 »

why? at sea they cannot walk in front of the acctual bridge and infact it could cause too much interference between the bridge and the window. there is also more chance for condensation.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #53 on:** March 03, 2013, 00:45:49 »

Well, at any rate, one thing is absolutely certain:

If this ship sees the light of day, she will forever change the way that Titanic documentaries are filmed!

Rbsanford · « **Reply #54 on:** March 03, 2013, 02:22:27 »

Not to mention movies in general. Cameron will probably make Titanic II! (shudder)

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #55 on:** March 03, 2013, 06:31:22 »

Jason, the modeler for VSTEP's Titanic model in the past Ship Simulator games, made a comment on the Titanic Research and Modelling Association's topic about the Titanic II (without any reference to Ship Simulator where his signature would otherwise be, which is notable because he used to include "Ship Simulator" after his name at the end of his posts).

Quote

I like it. I hope they don't screen off the new lifeboat area because I think it's the most obvious feature distinguishings it as a modern liner - which is what it is. I think they've done an excellent job in simulating sheer, and also on the bow. Good that it's wider too - also distinguishing.

The only thing that I don't like are the observation windows in the funnels, simply because they stand out too much. The could have put them in the black part of the funnel where they wouldn't be too obvious.

If they build this, I'd love to see it and travel on it - but not first class. I'd be be happy for second or third, although I'm sure when it's not cruising that it will be open for guided tours of all the ship.

What a brave and remarkable business idea this is. How can it not be success?

Similar sentiments in favor of the ship's design have been given from several different TRMA trustees and members, including some who have had their opinions changed for the better!

The Ferry King · « **Reply #56 on:** March 03, 2013, 13:09:28 »

Quote from: Rbsanford on March 03, 2013, 02:22:27

Not to mention movies in general. Cameron will probably make Titanic II! (shudder)

a cheaper version exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_II_%28film%29

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #57 on:** March 12, 2013, 15:15:36 »

These plans have had modifications since they were drafted, but here are the publicly released preliminary GA plans for Titanic II:

http://media.news.com.au/fe/2012/07/titanic2plans/doc/titanic-ii-plans.pdf

Changes made since then include replacing the two azimuth thruster/one propeller and rudder combination with three azimuth thrusters and a fake rudder that stops at the waterline. Presumably, the questions left on those plans have also since been answered

Still, it shows some insight into how Deltamarin went about the design.

Rbsanford · « **Reply #58 on:** March 12, 2013, 21:54:07 »

Yes, this newer design is a bit better then before. And it says something about allowing passenger's cars onboard! And harbor tours in lifeboats!

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #59 on:** March 12, 2013, 22:45:33 »

Quote from: Rbsanford on March 12, 2013, 21:54:07

And harbor tours in lifeboats!

Not just any lifeboats, but the replicated historical ones! That seems to indicate that the replica lifeboats might be fully functional on the final ship, which, in a way, increases Titanic II's lifeboat capacity in dire emergencies to at least 5,704 people! (There are 18 modern lifeboats at 250 people each, plus the 1,148 personnel capacity of the replicated lifeboats, and assuming that the two rescue boats and eight inflatable life rafts shown in a line drawing of the ship hold as little as four and six people each)

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #60 on:** March 31, 2013, 07:34:00 »

The thing that I most dread about Titanic II is the eventual media coverage of her voyages. You KNOW that if there's so much as a 10-second delay in giving a command on any of her trips because a crew member needed to have an order clarified, every news source on the Internet and in print will have "Titanic II Almost Sinks!" emblazoned on their front pages in as big of a font as humanly possible!

Captain Cadet · « **Reply #61 on:** March 31, 2013, 16:59:15 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on March 31, 2013, 07:34:00

The thing that I most dread about Titanic II is the eventual media coverage of her voyages. You KNOW that if there's so much as a 10-second delay in giving a command on any of her trips because a crew member needed to have an order clarified, every news source on the Internet and in print will have "Titanic II Almost Sinks!" emblazoned on their front pages in as big of a font as humanly possible!

I don't think they can (or will) do it. I think after solas it needs to happen instantly. Even if they could I don't think they risk it! Last thing they want is to be in the papers for the ship being damaged because of that 10 second delay and it could put lives at risk

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #62 on:** March 31, 2013, 19:18:47 »

Quote from: Captain Cadet on March 31, 2013, 16:59:15

I don't think they can (or will) do it. I think after solas it needs to happen instantly. Even if they could I don't think they risk it! Last thing they want is to be in the papers for the ship being damaged because of that 10 second delay and it could put lives at risk

I'm not even talking about putting lives at risk or taking damage. I'm talking about an officer accidentally mumbling an order and repeating himself for a 10-second delay that doesn't affect the ship in the slightest! That would be enough for papers to start claiming that the ship almost sank

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #63 on:** March 31, 2013, 19:43:26 »

Tell me.. have you ever visited the planet Earth?

danny · « **Reply #64 on:** March 31, 2013, 20:45:06 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on March 31, 2013, 19:43:26

Tell me.. have you ever visited the planet Earth?

Or the bridge of a ship whilst she's under way, for that matter

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #65 on:** March 31, 2013, 22:18:07 »

Still, I hope my original point is coming through, that most news agencies have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to... anything, really!

For reference, Fox News is the only major news agency I could find to consistently refer to Titanic II as an ocean liner instead of a cruise ship or cruise liner! The only time they used either of the other terms was in a direct quote from elsewhere.

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #66 on:** April 01, 2013, 02:40:16 »

Well at least we can always rely on good old Fox News to get all the fact straight... errrmm..

Question is though, does the general population really care what they call the big boat on the news?

There's no question she'd be a liner, if she travels across an ocean from port to port, but is it going to be more a necessary mode of transport for the passengers? Or more like a vacation and a 'Titanic experience'? Cause in that case, I guess you CAN call the new Titanic a cruise liner too, could you not? Part transportation, part entertainment.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #67 on:** April 01, 2013, 05:03:42 »

In this day and age, 6 days at sea might qualify as a vacation, but the ship acts as transport. Even then, too, that would only be the defense for the "cruise liner" name instead of the more frequent "cruise ship."

Considering, too, that the Titanic II is built with a V-shaped hull, particularly in the front, she really isn't designed to do what cruise ships are designed to do, and vice versa.

Really, it's like calling a coyote a wolf: sure, they're similar in multiple regards, and even mistakable to those who aren't well versed in the field, and the mistake might even be excusable in some circumstances, but it's still inaccurate nomenclature and can get on plenty of people's nerves

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #68 on:** April 01, 2013, 07:46:46 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on April 01, 2013, 05:03:42

Considering, too, that the Titanic II is built with a V-shaped hull, particularly in the front, she really isn't designed to do what cruise ships are designed to do, and vice versa.

Actually if you want to get accurate about things, you should consider a vessel's deployment, and not their hull shape, to determine what a ship is. Do you see them building many ships with such an old type of hull these days, still? nope.. you know why? Less effective.

Titanic can hardly have a different design of course, so she will inherit the characteristics that made ocean liners of old unsuitable for cruise work (higher fuel cost, more enclosed decks, deeper draught, smaller cabins for more passengers etc).. but if they would put her on a cruise route from port back to the same port anyway, she'd still immediately be a cruise ship and not a liner anymore... and if they sail her across an ocean from port A to port B, then she's a liner. Even container ships are liners if they sail regularly on shipping routes between ports across an ocean.. A ship does not need passengers to qualify as one. And they have hulls more similar to a cruise ship nowadays than an ocean liner of 100 years ago, I'd say.. so is a container ship then NOT a liner because of it?

Today, the line between ocean liners and cruise ships has become very close together and even one of the last of de dedicated ocean liners, QM2, was deployed for cruise work a lot too and well equipped for it. Of course the old design of the Titanic will make her unsuitable for that in some ways, although things like fuel consumption are not as big a problem anymore with betteer technology, but draught, enclosed decks (shallow ports, tropical heat) and such, still apply.

But it doesn't mean it couldn't be done. It's just a matter of 'where do we sail and what do we do while we're going there?'. Most ships built today are much closer apart, and deployment, not design, is what usually determines their 'job description'. And many cruise ships nowadays sail such great distances and between several ports, regularly, that they can be considered liners I guess.

The way I see it... it's the differene between transportation and tourism, although they do mix.

Fred.

p.s. on whose people's nerves? I think you're the only one here to be honest.

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #69 on:** April 01, 2013, 14:17:19 »

Quote from: Mad_Fred on April 01, 2013, 07:46:46

p.s. on whose people's nerves? I think you're the only one here to be honest.

I might be the only one here to get annoyed by that, but in terms of outside this forum, it seems that, for example, the owners of the SS United States also don't like having their floating wreck get called a "cruise ship"!

Mad_Fred · « **Reply #70 on:** April 01, 2013, 22:06:51 »

Ah okay, I thought when you said 'plenty of people', you actually meant a lot of them.

danny · « **Reply #71 on:** April 01, 2013, 22:11:42 »

Quote from: RMS Gigantic on April 01, 2013, 14:17:19

I might be the only one here to get annoyed by that, but in terms of outside this forum, it seems that, for example, the owners of the SS United States also don't like having their floating wreck get called a "cruise ship"!

I'm pretty sure they won't like someone calling their pride and joy a floating wreck either

saltydog · « **Reply #72 on:** April 01, 2013, 22:45:24 »

Which is pretty much what she is now. The future looks bleak for the SS United States..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/ss-united-states_n_2948010.html

RMS Gigantic · « **Reply #73 on:** April 01, 2013, 23:11:09 »

My attitude towards the SS United States has, truthfully, grown rather bitter ever since the descendant of her designer called Titanic II, essentially, a waste of resources. The way I see it, at least Clive Palmer is actually funding an ocean liner! The most optimistic outlook for the SS United States has her becoming a stationary hotel. I understand museum ships, but I would still heavily prefer something at least similar to what the USS Constitution has, where they take the ship out once in a while, even if just to turn her around! Heck, use tugs if she's not legally permitted to move under her own power!

Mr Robville · « **Reply #74 on:** April 02, 2013, 09:29:13 »

It actually surprises me that some media can distinguish an Ocean liner between a cruise ship...
I hate it when they call Titanic a cruise ship. Like if people back in 1912 planned a vacation on board. Immigrants? what's that? Those are in casino's right?
Or worse, Discovery Channel calls the QM2 a Cruiseboat. That's like calling a river ferry an OceanLiner.

It's only a shame that Clive Palmer constantly refers to the James Cameron movie. To Jack and Rose and their romance. So often in fact that I doubt if he actually knows that story is a fiction and the ship actually existed but without them. If you're gonna build the ship, you build it because you appreciate the ship and it's era. Not because Romeo and Juliet went fictionally on board.

Author Topic: Titanic II (Read 54789 times)