How Bored of the Titanic Are You?

Run_to_da_hills

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I find this kind of stuff fascinating as well. MV Estonia and Hearld Of The Free Enterprise are two more recent maritime disasters involving Merchant Naval vessels to read up on. 'Herald' of course involved a car ferry departing port with its vehicle doors open, shocking really, her Master and certain members of crew were charged with gross negligence and manslaughter in the aftermath while P&O got rapped with corporate manslaughter. Strangely though nobody was ever convicted.

Like the Titanic, the Herald of Free Enterprise and MV Estonia changed the rules on international shipping. Before this incident you could watch the St Columba turn a circle in Dunlaoghaire Harbour with its bow doors open for ventilation purposes, after those incidents it would be unheard of to do this in any ro ro car ferry.

44leto

smokedeels wrote: »

......KATE WISLET WAS IN THE NIP!

I love Kate Winslet, the English rose, Yes I have a thing for her. OK not really relevant to this thread, but I just had to say that when the thought of a nude Kate enters my head, she did go nude in loads of films, thank you Kate. But there should be more of this sort of thing.

Err anyway the titanic, I love the amazing coincidental and laws of chances which involved the sinking of that ship.. It took 2 years for that iceberg to break away from the Arctic then travel to the exact position were the biggest ocean liner, which took about 10 years to plan, construct and then test, which was on its maiden voyage, when both their paths met.

The chances are so astronomically enormous of that happening you could mistake it for destiny but of course it wasn't. This is the power of random events, one of the most powerful forces on Earth and the universe.

Funglegunk

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I find this kind of stuff fascinating as well. MV Estonia and Hearld Of The Free Enterprise are two more recent maritime disasters involving Merchant Naval vessels to read up on. 'Herald' of course involved a car ferry departing port with its vehicle doors open, shocking really, her Master and certain members of crew were charged with gross negligence and manslaughter in the aftermath while P&O got rapped with corporate manslaughter. Strangely though nobody was ever convicted.

May I recommend a book for you:

Lost Liners

Lots of famous wrecks, well written maritime history and beautiful paintings. Always loved this book.

Mal-Adjusted

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Well the sister ship did take a British warship to the side

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hawke_-_Olympic_collision.JPG

So the precedent for the titanic to survive a single isolated collision was there.

Now the olympic got seriously damaged from that. So much that he propeller shaft got twisted etc. But she stayed afloat, due to it being an isolated collision.

So the account of the titanic taking a direct collision with an iceberg is speculation since we dont know the scale of the berg, it could go from being less damaging then the above collision to an outright disaster. What we lack is the actual scale of the iceberg.

comparing the Olympic striking another ship on the side and the titanic hitting the iceberg dead-on are ridiculously incomparable.

eyewitness reports put the 'berg at anywhere between 50-100 feet high and 200-400 feet long. were she to collide head on, physics say Titanic would have to come to a dead halt instantly.i'd go on, but these two paragraphs can sum it up better...

Had the Titanic had struck the berg bow-on, the ship would have stopped almost instantly: people in their beds would have been thrown around their cabins, while people on deck would have been tossed against bulkheads. Think of how many fatal injuries that would have generated. And of course, there would have been hundreds of fatalities among the crew and the Third Class passengers–all of the former and half the latter were berthed in the bow.

As for damage to the ship, the shock of the impact would have traveled the length of the hull, causing the entire ship’s structure to flex, popping rivets and splitting seams just as occurred in the actual collision, but in this case along the entire length of the hull, opening up several more compartments to the sea. This is a scenario where the ship would have sunk in minutes, rather than hours. Not to mention the shock damage which would have shifted engines on their beds, ruptured steam lines, severed electrical cables and connections, and possibly caused distortion in the bulkheads that would have prevented the watertight doors from closing properly. Meanwhile, the loss of free surface area to the resultant flooding would have caused the ship to capsize less than an hour after the impact with the iceberg. When this idea (hitting the berg head-on) was first raised in 1912, Joseph Conrad (who held a Master’s ticket, remember!) summed it up best when he said, most sarcastically, “When in doubt, try to ram fairly.”

http://www.rmstitanicremembered.com/?page_id=282

BlitzKrieg

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

comparing the Olympic striking another ship on the side and the titanic hitting the iceberg dead-on are ridiculously incomparable.

eyewitness reports put the 'berg at anywhere between 50-100 feet high and 200-400 feet long. were she to collide head on, physics say Titanic would have to come to a dead halt instantly.i'd go on, but these two paragraphs can sum it up better...

...

So the precedent for the titanic to survive a single isolated collision was there.

Now the olympic got seriously damaged from that. So much that he propeller shaft got twisted etc. But she stayed afloat, due to it being an isolated collision.

So the account of the titanic taking a direct collision with an iceberg is speculation since we dont know the scale of the berg, it could go from being less damaging then the above collision to an outright disaster. What we lack is the actual scale of the iceberg.

Mal-Adjusted

:rolleyes: it's called informed estimation

Mr Benevolent

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

There is? Got to find that.

Red iceberg

JohnMarston

Anyone watch the Titanic conspiracy program on discovery channel last night with Theoden (aka Bernard Hill) presenting it?

who the fug

JohnMarston wrote: »

Anyone watch the Titanic conspiracy program on discovery channel last night with Theoden (aka Bernard Hill) presenting it?

Does it involve Zooey Deschanel, and a pink flamingo making on Bertie Aherns allotment

JohnMarston

who the fug wrote: »

Does it involve Zooey Deschanel, and a pink flamingo making on Bertie Aherns allotment

Funnily enough...no
What it did do was blast every argument the tinfoil hat wearers made in defense of the conspiracy theory that it wasn't the titanic that struck an iceberg, it was her sister

who the fug

JohnMarston wrote: »

Funnily enough...no
What it did do was blast every argument the tinfoil hat wearers made in defense of the conspiracy theory that it wasn't the titanic that struck an iceberg, it was her sister

The video is out there

44leto

JohnMarston wrote: »

Anyone watch the Titanic conspiracy program on discovery channel last night with Theoden (aka Bernard Hill) presenting it?

Is that the one that the ship was struck by aircraft piloted by arab terrorists. It was very plausible. Just think 100 years later and there still are conspiracy theories.

BlitzKrieg

who the fug wrote: »

The video is out there

if you mean this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JCarpqhWWc

then the re-enactments are the funniest OTT evil acting I've seen in a long time. Highlight is in part 2 where they threaten the irish worker

Mickey H

I'm not bored of it at all. In fact, I've never even seen it. It was well before my time...

jupiterjack

could never get bored of it, recording all the titanic programs that are on at the moment..

44leto

I think I know why the fascination with this disaster lingers. It was the first peacetime man made unexpected mega disaster. Up to then man had a newly acquired confidence in their engineering skills, they could do anything and defeat nature. But nature is bigger then they assumed.

It is a lesson with a legacy, Icewatch, double and triple hulled ships, sealed hull compartments (the titanic compartment were not sealed) more extensive safety checks on all civilian craft.

M cebee

michael d makin' a big speech

and a postage stamp with the captain who caused the accident

totally ott

DEFTLEFTHAND

M cebee wrote: »

michael d makin' a big speech

and a postage stamp with the captain who caused the accident

totally ott

How distasteful. I don't like that small fella at all, he irks the sh1t out of me.

Capt'n Midnight

44leto wrote: »

I think I know why the fascination with this disaster lingers. It was the first peacetime man made unexpected mega disaster. Up to then man had a newly acquired confidence in their engineering skills, they could do anything and defeat nature. But nature is bigger then they assumed.

Actually disasters were like clockwork
All of these occurred in the Empire so you'd have to be living under a rock etc.

1902 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Camorta 747 dead , NO survivors
1904 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Norge 635 dead 160 survived, Rockall
1906 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Valencia Lifeboats mismanaged no women or children survived, Nearer my God to thee played
1908 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gladiator_%281896%29 Collision with a liner
1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Waratah 211, NO survivors

1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic#Hawke_collision
Same model of ship , with same captain

IrishEyes19

dont know how you could be bored. any documentaries, and articles Ive read about it this year have been really interesting, learnt a lot more about it than I previously knew. Nice commemoration to the people who did die on it, particularly steerage, considering they suffered a raw deal in escaping in the first place and secondly, its a moment in history being honoured. Why its annoying you amazes me, surely you can put away the paper or turn of the tv/radio?

Richard

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It went into decline shortly there after, even towards the last age of ocean liners they were often overlooked for tenders, Workman & Clarke the other shipyard in Belfast benefited greatly from this, I guess the Billy boys at Wollf got their comuppence, they still exist in a skeletal form today producing apps for rigs and the like but the glory days are well behind them.

Where's your source for this?

Capt'n Midnight

http://xkcd.com/1040/large

Thomas828

It's funny but I live in Downpatrick which is about 20 miles from Belfast but I've never found myself ranting, "Argh! Will you shut up about the flipping Titanic?!" Titanic fever is rampant in Belfast. Titanic was grossly extravagant, even for its time.

But in Ireland in 1912 we had a far more important matter to deal with: the third Home Rule Bill. There was intense debate on all sides, from the Unionist News Letter to the Nationalist Irish News.

But that's ancient history now. We prefer to commemorate a palace disguised as a ship that has been lying at the bottom of the sea for exactly 100 years.

pragmatic1

Very sick of it. Who gives a flying ****.

44leto

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actually disasters were like clockwork
All of these occurred in the Empire so you'd have to be living under a rock etc.

1902 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Camorta 747 dead , NO survivors
1904 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Norge 635 dead 160 survived, Rockall
1906 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Valencia Lifeboats mismanaged no women or children survived, Nearer my God to thee played
1908 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gladiator_%281896%29 Collision with a liner
1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Waratah 211, NO survivors

1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic#Hawke_collision
Same model of ship , with same captain

There were always sea disasters since man took to the ocean and he did that very early in our development.

But non involved the confidence of been unsinkable because it was built in a modern machine and technological age as the titanic was. Yet it sunk on its maiden voyage to add to the drams and the lesson of over confidence in technology and unforeseen events.

efb

Titanic: A Commemoration in Music and Film BBC2 Sat with Brian Ferry and Josh Stone, if only her surname were Iceberg... close enough.

Capt'n Midnight

44leto wrote: »

But non involved the confidence of been unsinkable because it was built in a modern machine and technological age as the titanic was. Yet it sunk on its maiden voyage to add to the drams and the lesson of over confidence in technology and unforeseen events.

Did you know that people didn't think the world was flat in Columbus's time ?

Media hype, PR doesn't represent what people think.

44leto

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Did you know that people didn't think the world was flat in Columbus's time ?

Media hype, PR doesn't represent what people think.

Yes the circunference was actually calculated to a remarkable accuracy in ancient Greece.

PR and advertising is actually very good at making people think what these companies please even in this media savvy world. So in a way it does represent what people think.

But even the engineers of the titanic thought it was virtually unsinkable, 3 whole compartments of the hull had to be breached, what are the chances of that happening. It did happen.

But anyway there is a recurring theme, man has confidence in his science he feels invincible, but then something happens to shatter that optimism.

That is just my opinion, not really to be taken that seriously, just an impression i got.

psychward

I often think they should raise the Titanic and blow it up to shut these people up.

Palytoxin

Just saw Titanic 2 was on earlier on Syfy, I'd say That's good!
Hopefully now after all this centenary stuff they'll just give over about it- like fair enough if you were on it I don't mind you talking about it, but if you weren't just forget about it, PLEASE

44leto

Which masochistic guy would go and see Titanic 3D, imagine hearing that song in 3D ##Shudder##.

I did think about an hour and a half was good but the other 10 hours. I cried galloops, my back was killing me, my legs were stiff. I was dying for a cigarette and I was starving.

Directors 2 hours is the maximum anyone can sit in a cinema, anything longer and it starts to feel you are undergoing the box torture.

red sean

Palytoxin wrote: »

Just saw Titanic 2 was on earlier on Syfy, I'd say That's good!
Hopefully now after all this centenary stuff they'll just give over about it- like fair enough if you were on it I don't mind you talking about it, but if you weren't just forget about it, PLEASE

Holy **** did it sink again?

44leto

red sean wrote: »

Holy **** did it sink again?

On the SyFi channel the possibilities are limitless, alternative realities, Titanic 2 was a spaceship, bermuda triangle. I know it was a stupid film because its scifi and I didn't even watch it.

cianisgood

its weird that people are celebrating a huge failure

44leto

cianisgood wrote: »

its weird that people are celebrating a huge failure

What it successfully sank.

I thought it was more a memorial then a celebration,

stupidusername

It's only goin to be for a few more days at the most,suck it up!

ToddyDoody

I'm so bored of it that i could shrug my shoulders, if i wasnt so bored

Run_to_da_hills

cianisgood wrote: »

its weird that people are celebrating a huge failure

That's only because there is big money in it.

BionicRasher

The White Star line had its fair share of disasters prior to Titanic

RMS Tayleur -- sank 1853
Launched on Oct. 4, 1853, the Tayleur sank on its maiden voyage. "Illustrated London News," notes that "no expense had been spared in her construction." Nevertheless, the ship's rudder was found to be improperly sized and the compasses failed. The ship carried 584 passengers and 71 crew members. The crew was said to have been inexperienced and understaffed. The ship ran aground and efforts to leave the Tayleur were chaotic. "Only 282 individuals were saved," the publication noted.
RMS Atlantic -- sank 1873
Last port of call seems to be Cobh also
Atlantic sank on her 19th trip. Carrying a total of 957 people, of whom 833 were passengers, some 545 perished when the ship ran onto rock surrounding the coast of Nova Scotia. No women survived and only one 12 year old survived out of all the children on board. Lifeboats were washed away by the waves; signal rockets remained unanswered. Blame was placed on the ship's officers, who failed to heed warnings about coming too close to the shoreline. (Remind you of anything recently?)
SS Naronic -- sank 1893
SS Naronic was a steamship built by Harland and Wolff in Belfast for the White Star Line. The ship was lost at sea after leaving Liverpool on February 11, 1893 bound for New York, with the loss of all 74 people on board. The ship's fate is a mystery that remains unsolved to this day. It is however thought that she hit an iceberg in the same area as the Titanic disaster

Latchy

Another one to surface for Titanoracks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9200288/Titanic-Minute-by-Minute-Radio-2-preview.html

Nothingbetter2d

fryup wrote: »

poorly designed, sub standard parts:rolleyes:

it was built to the highest of standards.....it was poor seamanship that sank it

WRONG!!! Along with the material failures, poor design of the watertight compartments in the Titanic's lower section was a factor in the disaster. The lower section of the Titanic was divided into sixteen major watertight compartments that could easily be sealed off if part of the hull was punctured and leaking water. After the collision with the iceberg, the hull portion of six of these sixteen compartments was damaged. Sealing off the compartments was completed immediately after the damage was realized, but as the bow of the ship began to pitch forward from the weight of the water in that area of the ship, the water in some of the compartments began to spill over into adjacent compartments. Although the compartments were called watertight, they were actually only watertight horizontally; their tops were open and the walls extended only a few feet above the waterline. If the transverse bulkheads (the walls of the watertight compartments that are positioned across the width of the ship) had been a few feet taller, the water would have been better contained within the damaged compartments. Consequently, the sinking would have been slowed, possibly allowing enough time for nearby ships to help. However, because of the extensive flooding of the bow compartments and the subsequent flooding of the entire ship, the Titanic was gradually pulled below the waterline.

The watertight compartments were useless to countering the damage done by the collision with the iceberg. Some of the scientists studying the disaster have even concluded that the watertight compartments contributed to the disaster by keeping the flood waters in the bow of the ship. If there had been no compartments at all, the incoming water would have spread out, and the Titanic would have remained horizontal. Eventually, the ship would have sunk, but she would have remained afloat for another six hours before foundering. This amount of time would have been sufficient for nearby ships to reach the Titanic's location so all of her passengers and crew could have been saved.

Ash.J.Williams

what does michelle o'bama have to say about it!!


http://www.theonion.com/articles/healthy-nutritious-food-would-have-saved-the-titan,27923/

Capt'n Midnight

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

WRONG!!!

Hull steel was fine

rivets weren't , a good few had imperfections

Capt'n Midnight

And to all those people who suggested to Raise the Titanic

as Lew Grade said 'It would have been cheaper to lower the ocean'

It's an even worse film...

cooranig23

is it true that if it had hit the iceberg head on instead of trying to avoid it maybe it would have stayed afloat

Capt'n Midnight

cooranig23 wrote: »

is it true that if it had hit the iceberg head on instead of trying to avoid it maybe it would have stayed afloat

almost certainly.

mike65

ITV viewers sink the Titanic

BlitzKrieg

mike65 wrote: »

ITV viewers sink the Titanic

that article just made me more interested in watching this:

Simon Vaughan, the executive producer who first pitched the idea of a TV drama to mark the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking and raised co-production funding around the world, said when he began the project five years ago he had no idea there would be so much competition.

As well as the re-release of James Cameron's blockbuster movie in 3D, the ITV drama has had to compete with a glut of TV documentaries, including BBC1's Titanic with Len Goodman and Channel 5's Nazi Titanic: Revealed.

then the actual drama.

unkymo

Nazi Titanic is brilliant, well worth a watch.

BlitzKrieg

I swear it sounds like something that should be on syfy.