Some quick research reveals the current carnival cruise ships carry

twice as many passengers and crew than the Titanic, yet only about

125' longer then the Titanic's 883'.

Maybe the new ocean liner will invent lower density passenger cruise ships.

Moi

moi621 (imported) wrote: Wed May 29, 2013 10:03 pm Some quick research reveals the current carnival cruise ships carry

twice as many passengers and crew than the Titanic, yet only about

125' longer then the Titanic's 883'.

Maybe the new ocean liner will invent lower density passenger cruise ships.

Moi

Titanic was powered by coal and had to carry water for the boilers. If the new Titanic is powered by diesel there will be more room for passengers. I wonder if they'll improve things in steerage?

I have the same thoughts as River. "I'm a billionaire, what do I do with my money? Build a new Titanic!"

Yeah, right...

Why not do something constructive?

Twenty some odd years ago, my wife and I took our first cruise on a ship that had been built as a trans-Atlantic liner just after WWII. It was diesel powered and grossed 20,000 tons with a cruise ship capacity of 700 passengers. This ship was due to be retired since even at that time it was less than half the size of the popular cruise ships. We booked early and, since there were only about 425 passengers for this cruise were upgraded to the cabin class that was depicted in the brochure photos.

The accommodations were Art Deco luxury. (Apparently, marine architects were still doing Art Deco in the 1940s.) Our outside cabin had a bedroom with a queen-sized bed and a sitting area with chairs, lounge and a desk (together larger than our bedroom at home), a separate dressing room and a full bathroom with all amenities including a bidet. The ship was Italian crewed, with an Italian galley staff and a polyglot cabin staff from all over the world. We had a wonderful time cruising around the Caribbean. With so few passengers on board the staff was practically looking for all possible ways to serve us and the food was, of course, wonderful.

The only mechanical problem this old ship had was a one hour interruption in the water system on the fourth day out. We really appreciated that this ship had been built for deep water transit and was not built as a cruise ship when we had a one-night brush with a passing hurricane between Venezuela and Grenada. The ship handled the heavy seas so well that almost all aboard regarded it as an thrilling adventure rather than a frightening experience. The whole thing sold us on cruising.

The next time was rather different. It was a more contemporary cruise ship with 1500 people on board. The cabin, while outside, was only 140 square feet with a bed on each side of the cabin although one of them could be pushed against the other, on a rail system, to make a queen sized bed. The closet space and bathroom facilities were reminiscent of an RV. While there certainly were more entertainment opportunities on the larger ship, I don't think that the ratio of staff to passengers was as good as the smaller ship even if the smaller ship had it's maximum passengers on board. It was more like visiting an amusement park than sailing in luxury. The ship was built for cruising the Caribbean and in spite of it's size had a shallower draft than the older ship so it could get up to the dock at island harbors. (The older ship could not enter the harbor at Grenada and we had to be lightered to shore.) A little rough water on one night convinced me that had this ship encountered the hurricane that we did on the other cruise the experience would have been an ordeal rather than an adventure. The ship was also mechanically noisy, indicating somewhat light construction, and after listening to the engines on the first night out we nicknamed it "Thumper".

Even though the food was just as good, another Italian galley staff, the experience put us off cruising. Neither of us wants to get on board one of these new 120,000 plus ton "wedding cake" cruise ships with 2200 passengers on it.

At least Royal Caribbean didn't try to weasel out. They did the right thing and

they did it quickly. They run a lot better company

than Carnival

Royal Caribbean is Carnival's (much smaller) chief rival. Between the two lines they carry about 85% of the worldwide ocean going cruise passengers. I can not remember off the top of my head but Carnival operates under about ten names and Royal Caribbean uses about four different names. --FLO--

One should not worry about the subject of this thread.

When the ship sinks the fire will go out.

What happened to the Titanic was pretty DUMB.

If they had not saw the iceberg and tried to avoid it the ship would not have sank.

...anybody for leaning forward off of the bow and screaming "...I'm the KING of the World!!!!"