Cruise Liner Fan

In one of the scenes of the Titanic movie A Night to Remember, Titanic designer Thomas Andrews is advising a newlywed couple to not jump into the water, but to lower themselves by climbing down the ropes that are hanging along the port & starboard sides of the Titanic as the way to get off the Titanic. Regards,Jerry

Blue Riband, from New Yorker to another, I'll skip the question about the Towers and return to the discussion regarding cruise ships...

 

Specifically relating to QM2 (the only Cunard ship I have sailed on), no doubt we have all seen the davits and canisters (or containers, whatever you wish to call them) on the aft of deck 7 on both sides of the ship. These canisters contain inflatable life rafts. While these life rafts are intended to for the use of the crew in the event of an emergency, passengers would also use these inflatable rafts in the event that Tenders (lifeboats) are rendered disabled or unable to be deployed in the event the ship lists to an unsafe angle.

 

I wondered how these inflatable life rafts would be deployed in the event of a call to abandon ship. While I have never seen an exercise of such an emergency evacuation on any cruise ship, I found a video of a "Davit Launched Life Training Exercise". While I note that this video pertains to a drill on an oil rig and not a cruise ship, it is the best example I have found that shows how these inflatable life rafts work. If interested, the video can be found here:

 

I would be very happy to see a more comforting example, if anyone can shed a better light. Thanks, -S.

I am certain that I saw that similar inflatable life rafts were also aboard QE2. And probably all cruise ships carry them again as insurance in the event the Tenders which are also lifeboats can not be used because the ship lists to an unsafe angle. I know that this is not a pleasant thing to say but any mode of transportation be it a car,bus,plane,train or ship have seen tragedy happen to a car,bus,plane,train or ship in which people died. Just a week and a half ago while I was on the QM2's New England/Canada cruise on October 20th the port of call was Halifax where in 3 cemeteries the Titanic victims are buried. Then about a day or so later the QM2 while enroute to Quebec City when sailing on the St. Lawrence River, the QM2 sailed by a spot on the St. Lawrence River where 99 years ago in 1914 another tragedy involving a ship that many people have never heard of happened when a Canadian Pacific Passenger Ship named the Empress of Ireland enroute to Liverpool,England and just a few hours after sailing from Quebec City, collided with a cargo ship carrying coal named the Storstad in the fog. The Storstad hit the Empress of Ireland broadside and the Storstad suffered with a badly crushed bow but managed to stay afloat. Unfortunately for the Empress of Ireland she sank in about 20 minutes I think. And also the Empress of Ireland suffered in more passenger deaths than in the Titanic. Of course we all should pray for all the victims in all these transportation tragedies. Since I still enjoy going on ships the only solution in my opinion concerning me is to not to go on any ship that is larger than the QM2. Regards,Jerry

I still after seeing the video of the stricken cruise ship, would feel safer aboard a ship than aboard a plane. Guess how many survivors there were when in 1996 a TWA jet that had just taken off from JFK Airport then crashed into the Atlantic off of Long Island? Answer is 0. And they still don't know what was the cause of the plane crashing into the Atlantic. Regards,Jerry

I had never really looked at it from that very good point of view, and I cannot fault your reasoning :eek:;)

 

When these huge modern ships have a total power failure they are in the hands of the Gods and when the wind puts them broadside to the seas .. That ride at best might become uncomfortable. Thankfully I have never heard of a case of this breakdown occurring when Mother Nature was at her worse. Unfortunately the Queen Mary 2 falls into this bracket but thankfully legislation now insists that ships built after a certain date in 2010 actually have some type of safe return to port propulsion?? (IS this really an enforcable piece of legislation?)

 

I can see where you are both coming frrom and may I very respectfully suggest that as a lay person I can seee two sides to your disagreements.

 

When the Queen Mary 2 looses all power, she looses any type of drive for her propellers. Not a nice thought and this has happened more than once!! If a huge air liner were to loose ALL power to their engines then i would suggest everyone on that aircraft will be in deep do doo's!! To prevent this from happening, aircraft have multiple built in safety requirements.

 

Ask yourself what back-up systems there are on a cruise ship (or liner) Then research how many times ships have been completely 'dead in the water'.

 

I can recall a jumbo jet flying through the ash from a volcano but from memory the engines wereeventually 'bump' started!! :)

The Queen Mary 2 is both diesel powered & gas turbine powered. The question I'm now asking is if there is a diesel engine failure aboard QM2 can the gas turbine engines then be turned on and provide enough electrical power for the pods and the navigation equipment in the Bridge and the Engine Control Room. Electricity for the hotel services aboard the QM2 may have to be turned off so that all the electricity generated is only for the pods and navigation equipment and radio communication until the diesel engines can be turned back on. Does anyone have the answer to the question I asked? Regards,Jerry

Again, I am in no way a naval architect, but my common sense tells me that a ship with a large surface area above the waterline is more likely to be affected by high winds abeam than a ship which sits lower in the water, and is more likely to have a higher center of gravity detracting from stability. Unless of course the newer ships are being built with aluminum superstructures like the SS United States which sits corroding quietly at a dock about 10 miles from where I live.

 

The more stable and wind-resistant the ship, other things being equal, the better it can maneuver and ride out a storm and the less chance that the lifeboats will need to be lowered. That, to me, is the major problem with the mega-sized cruise ships. QM2 manages to pull it off, but then it is designed as an ocean liner, not simply a cruise ship.

Then the solution should be to no longer build them to cruise ship specifications but to build them exactly like the QM2 which is to build them as real Ocean Liners and no bigger than the QM2. One question I would like to ask is since the Queen Victoria & the Queen Elizabeth are really Cruise Ships is Cunard taking too much of a bad risk when the Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth do the occasional transatlantic crossing? I think I have heard that both ships are built with stronger bows with thicker steel plating as compared to the other Vista Class Ships, so that the Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth can do the occasional transatlantic crossing but I am not to sure if that statement is correct. Regards,Jerry

" the level of safety of US Commercial Airlines probably exceeds the safety of any cruise ship (ocean liner) by several orders of magnitude."

That is your opinion and still in my honest opinion I concerning me would still feel safer aboard a ship than being aboard a plane. If you want to think otherwise well you are entitled to your opinion. Regards,Jerry

Many also say, they feel safer in a car, than on a plane. But, that is usually explained by the fact that people do not understand risk.

 

Once you start to look at the thousands of take-offs and landing every day, and the sheer volume of people traveling by plane; you begin to realize how small the risk is.

 

Personally, considering the last year+, and the overall lack of oversight of the major cruise lines; it's just a matter of time before there is a catastrophe of unheard of proportions. I have no confidence, that any ocean liner sailing today (and this is mostly, with regard to the mega-ships) could properly evacuate a ship of 3,000 to 5,000 in a timely fashion if there was a major incident. This is further made difficult by the demographic that often travel on ships (older and less mobile). I certainly hope, this is addressed, before something "really" bad happens.

Well the passenger ship industry already suffered a major catastrophe. Ever hear of the Titanic? And it was only because of the arrogant attitude that having enough lifeboats & life rafts for every passenger & crew was not necessary, well that attitude came back to bite them on the rear-end when the Titanic went down. Because if the Titanic had enough lifeboat & life raft space for every passenger & crew there would have been not one loss of life. She sank slow enough to lower the lifeboats & life rafts. Problem was there was not enough lifeboats & life rafts for every passenger & crew. Of course the Lusitania was the result of the evil German submarine and the Andrea Doria was the result of bad navigation actions of the deck officers of the ship Stockholm had hit the Andrea Doria. Regards,Jerry

And concerning Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia, O.K. there is some concerns of building them too big and maybe they should not build them any bigger than the QM2. But other than that when there is enough lifeboat & life raft space for every passenger & crew, and also sprinklers and fire fighting equipment aboard ship and also laws not allowing the use of wood for decorating the interiors of the ships I don't know of anything else that will make the ships any more safer. Regards,Jerry

Do you realize the extreme level of maintenance requirements and documentation that are required for commercial airlines? Not only that, but planes and engines undergo an extreme level of documented heavy maintenance.

 

Setting aside, some Chinese airlines and airlines of 3rd world countries; the level of safety of US Commercial Airlines probably exceeds the safety of any cruise ship (ocean liner) by several orders of magnitude.

In all due respect and in my honest opinion I do feel safer aboard a ship than being aboard a plane. Regards,Jerry

Forum members may be interested in an article in this morning's NY Times (web link here) on the increasing size of cruise ships and its implications for safety at sea, which seem dire. It was a reminder that QM2 was the world's largest cruise ship at launch, but now lags the newest title holders (RCL's Oasis and Allure) by 55 feet of length and 74,000 gross tons. The RCL ships can accommodate about twice as many passengers as QM2.

 

Not only have the ships been growing, so has the passenger:crew ratio. As low as 1.8 on QE2, it has climbed to 2.6-2.8 on the newer ships (and is about 2.4 on QM2 if Doug Ward's figures are correct). This seems to be at the heart of the safety concerns, particularly in an evacuation.

 

I'm certainly no naval architect, but a ship which is 4.8% longer than QM2 but with internal capacity 49% greater must have been built much higher than QM2 to achieve this. Not sure I would want a higher-deck cabin on such a ship.

 

One industry insider is quoted as saying "The simple problem is they are building them too big and putting too many people on board."

I wonder if the government gives as much scrutiny to the airline industry as they are doing to the cruise ship industry? As for the Costa Concordia it is the fault of the idiot captain that the ship had the accident and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that tragedy :mad: Regards,Jerry

Hopefully when QM2 reaches the Port of Bar Harbor, Maine, the weather will be better than it was when QM2 anchored off the port on Friday 13 September 2013.

 

That day, the tenders were delayed due to fog. But when the fog cleared somewhat and one and then two tenders were sent ashore. The fog thickened. The tenders disappeared into the fog within seconds. Passengers on board those two tenders can give a first hand account of what happened next.

 

The captain announced over the tannoy that the third tender had been returned to the ship, having been turned back before reaching shore. The first tender and second tender subsequently returned to the ship. Later in the afternoon, tender service was resumed.

 

I watched from my balcony the fog descending and lifting in the most unpredictable patterns. I believe that was a really difficult day for the captain and crew. But the end result is that they obviously did their job well. And from what I heard from passengers aboard the first two tenders, passengers are also to be commended for their composure and for following protocol.

 

But back to the current QM2 voyage - I hope everyone has an enjoyable time in the port of Bar Harbor. (Spend a lot of money on shore because we didn't get a chance to do that in September:) Cheers, -S.

Thanks Salacia. Right now as I type this the QM2 is sailing towards Boston. Arrival around 10 AM. I had an enjoyable day in Newport. I am also enjoying being aboard the QM2. Regards from the QM2, Jerry

I've just booked our first Cunard fly cruise leaving on a BA charter from Heathrow to Rome.

The Cunard documents recommend check in 3 hours before departure,. Does anyone have any recent experience of these flights. Is 3 hours necessary ? We've not travelled from Terminal 5 before either so I would be grateful for any advice.

 

Many Thanks

 

Kate

Kate if the airline travel from Heathrow to Rome is too much trouble as an alternative there is the train though to get to Rome from London on the train probably would require a transfer in Paris and would require longer travel time compared to the airlines. This is just a suggestion from me because I have not flown since 1970 when I was 11 years old. And I have not traveled on European trains since the year 1970 when my parents who emigrated to the USA from Italy in the Mid 1950s, took myself and my sisters on a trip to Italy. Regards,Jerry

You can have Julia Gillard back. We're done with her now. :cool:

So I guess you're not a fan of the former Prime Minister of Australia? Regards,Jerry

The interiors of the Cunard Building in Liverpool do look beautiful. This is beginning to look like a war of words between Southampton and Liverpool. Nothing personal against Southampton but I as an American would like at least one crossing that ends in Liverpool. I have read in books about Ocean Liners that Liverpool was the UK terminal port city for Cunard until 1919 when Cunard moved its UK terminal port city to Southampton because the White Star Line moved to Southampton from Liverpool several years earlier and because the port facilities in Southampton are better and because Southampton is much closer to London than Liverpool. Something similar like this happened here in the USA when Royal Caribbean International which owns Royal Caribbean Cruise Line and Celebrity Cruise Line moved its New York area port operations from the Manhattan West Side piers to the former Bayonne Ocean Military Terminal in Bayonne,New Jersey where the ships for the U.S. military used to dock. Royal Caribbean International moved to this location as a place to dock its Royal Caribbean and Celebrity Cruise Ships from the Manhattan West Side piers because the Royal Caribbean International officials felt that the Manhattan West Side piers have become obsolete at the time they moved to Bayonne in 2003. This is why the NYC officials in 2008 had 2 of the 3 Manhattan West Side piers which are Piers 88 and 90 renovated so that NYC would not lose anymore Cruise Ship business to New Jersey. I being a New Jersey resident would have LOVED to see Cunard move its New York area docking facilities instead of Brooklyn to the same dock in Bayonne,New Jersey that Royal Caribbean International uses. This same dock is only about a few miles South of the Statue of Liberty which is also really located in the New Jersey side of the harbor. Regards,Jerry

It is too bad that there is maybe not enough passenger demand for a second Transatlantic Liner doing the UK-USA crossing. According to maritime historian Bill Miller, he has said that there are only enough passengers to fill up only one ship doing the crossings in any one year. If it is ever proven that the Transatlantic Liner market can support two ships, I am thinking that one ship can do the Liverpool to New York run and the other ship can do the Southampton to New York run. But I guess we will never see again something like the original Queen Mary meeting the original Queen Elizabeth midpoint on the North Atlantic with one Cunard Queen sailing on to New York and the other Cunard Queen sailing on to Southampton. Regards,Jerry

No upgrades to the gym or pool? I've found another sticking point for some cruisers.

 

...

 

Since it also appears that Titanic II will only have 4 elevators (3 in 1st class and 1 in 2nd class) I doubt many older passengers will feel confident sailing - especially in 3rd class.

 

Not that 3rd class really need elevators, especially after 10pm when the stairway gates to the poop deck and fore deck promenade areas were locked. I'm sure passengers will love the enforced period bed time experience! The Blue Star line could market it as 'deluxe turn down service' for steerage passengers wishing to spend a little more than the regular swill - a chocolate coated raisin on the pillow awaits you while our stewards drag you back to your 6 sleeper inside cabin and lock you in for the night.'

 

No televisions either, not even in 1st class apparently. I guess Palmer is hoping people will just enjoy looking at the period furniture (well, if you are in 1st class - you could just stare at the white walls in steerage, or not, when the lights are switched off for you).

 

Alas, no grand theatre either. I suppose buckets of rotting fruit could be left aft on A deck promenade for 1st class passengers to hurl at the steerage passengers below. Since there is to be no modern gym equipment, I guess dodging the fruit hurling can be the daily exercise class for steerage passengers...for a small fee (plus 15% gratuity), to be added to your shipboard account.

 

And what woman wouldn't love to dress in period costume! Rigid corsets with whale bone sides that dig into their bodies. It's not so bad since they won't need to get out of them in a hurry, what with the pool being on F deck and it being so small as to not warrant the effort. And since there are no double beds or queen sized beds (if we are going by the original), then it should be safe to say the corsets can just stay on for the entire crossing. Might be easier that way!

 

They can take tea in the lounge ('tea, Trudy') and complain about there being no clotted cream. And since we're into the period lifestyle, they can amuse themselves by speaking condescendingly to the crew and being snide to one another.

 

They might also choose to book a potentially popular behind the scenes tour called 'How the other half live tour'. This would be exclusive to 1st class passengers and include tours of the steerage accommodations and the crew quarters. Full sanitising set up available prior to returning to 1st class areas. And for one lucky steerage passenger each voyage, a lottery will be drawn allowing that single person to dine one evening in 1st class. However, they must find a generous benefactor who will provide appropriate dinner wear and they will spend the evening at a large table being subjected to condescension and ridicule. After this, they will be escorted back to their cabin.

 

Meanwhile, the men can all get addicted to smoking in their lounge at the aft of A deck, congratulating themselves on being 'masters of the universe' and trying to get satellite links on their tablets and smart phones to catch the big game. For the intellectual gentleman, guest lecturers could speak on a range of appropriate topics such as 'How to break the back of your unionised workforce', 'Buying your way into politics (and how to bribe your local Congressman)', and 'A history of the Republican Party and the Tories' (three part lecture).

 

Of course, essential communication with the outside world can be messaged and received through on the wireless. I'm sure the radio room guys will have plenty of time for that. Being Chinese built, one need not worry about iceberg warnings.

 

Perhaps another opportunity to make money for the line can be found through the new fangled wireless. They could call it Blue Star Luggage - 'Have your suitcases, steamer trunks and portable safe transported with the utmost care from the ship's hold to your waiting vintage Rolls Royce or private train with luxurious Pullman Palace carriages. Large items in the hold, such as automobiles, will have their windows wiped down prior to disembarkation.'

 

For steerage passengers wishing to really immerse themselves in the period, an optional 'Ellis Island Immigration Disembarkation Experience' can be arranged, whereby they are taken off ship by ferry, sent to a special facility and interrogated by US customs officials even more than usual. Full cavity search, bags opened and medical examination all included (I know some of you are thinking how is this different to what people already go through at airports).

 

Just so the 1st class passengers don't feel left out, the line could also offer a special, extra disembarkation package should the ship need to be evacuated due to a giant iceberg or such. The 'Lifeboats at Sea' package would include priority lifeboat boarding and additional leg room by only taking 20 passengers in a lifeboat built for 64. Champagne and caviar would be served by a white gloved waiter. Plush life jackets are also available, but for an additional, nominal fee. Passengers travelling in the suites on decks B and C automatically get the plush jackets. This package also ensures that should your lifeboat be called back to the ship to pick up more passengers that it will not do so.

 

:)

I wonder if there will be a Host and Hostess that look like Jack and Rose who then can take the passengers on a grand tour of Titanic II that includes the cargo hold where the early 20th Century car is located and in that same car Jack and Rose did their hot and steamy sexy love thing :eek: Regards,Jerry

Here is another Youtube video filmed from the deck of the Queen Victoria. It showed the Queen Elizabeth sailing through very rough seas. Both the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Victoria were doing a tandem transatlantic crossing in January 2011.

Regards,Jerry

True, but sad. It's pure nostalgia to think of those fast crossings today, the market has changed, but thank heavens for QM2, better than nothing at all.

 

In the meantime, I found this Youtube clip from a particularly stormy Atlantic crossing in the late 1980's. If ever there was an advert of the need for a stronger built hull, this is it... :)

 

Thanks for the link of the Youtube video of the QE2 crossing in the late 1980s. It was kind of scary to see in the video the baby grand piano aboard the QE2 that was tied to a wall. I also found this video of the Queen Victoria in rough seas Though in the Queen Victoria video it did not look like the seas were as bad as in the QE2 video. Regards,Jerry

I am a huge fan of everything that Cunard represents and agree with what you say but that is being said without seeing the interior of a ship that has not been built.

 

To me crossing a cold bleak Atlantic should be done in the most comfortable way possible :o:D and I totally accept the Atlantic is not always cold and not always bleak but is it 'the bigger the ship, the more comfortable the ride'? (said in a light hearted and humorous way) The Queen Mary 2 is the ideal, absolute ideal vessel for this type of crossing, I can envisage some folks trying out the Titanic II (if it ever gets built) but will they stay loyal to that ship? The other vessel has a huge following where the name gets 'posteriors on bunks'. what type of name or reputation does the Titanic have? :eek:;)

I assume you are referring to the first class restaurant aboard Titanic II? Well I am referring to the movies A Night to Remember and James Cameron's Titanic as to what the first class restaurant aboard Titanic II will look like since we were told that all the public rooms aboard Titanic II will look like the public rooms aboard the original Titanic. Then there is the claim that there will not be any internet service aboard Titanic II. Are they kidding with that idea? A lot of passengers today want internet service aboard ship. Regards,Jerry

well said and many apologies for getting sucked in top taking this debate off topic (I do have a history for this but never in a vindictive manner)

 

I really dislike the vindictive attitude one person has taken for my daring to ask questions regarding the QM2 but we are who we are and this issue will get sorted early next year.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Austcruiser,

Thank you for highlighting that and I feel you have I think hit the nail squarely on the head and if an ocean liner is always an ocean liner then my question has been answered but is that the case? Quite literally dozens and dozens of ocean liners wewre removed from service. The great majority being far, far smaller than most modern day floating hotels.

 

The Blue Riband contenders were amzing ships the like of which we might never see again but whgat about all the other ocean liners that traversed the Idian, Pacific or indeed Atlantic Ocean?

 

To suggest this ship had a longer range, higher freeboard or carried more food than some of the more modern, larger cruise ships is factually incorrect, but she was an ocean liner

 

 

To suggest if a ship was designed as an ocean liner, built as an ocean liner, commissioned as an ocean liner is then always going to be an ocean liner may or may not be factually incorrect but if this is the case then it does indeed answer my query but it then contradicts itself as the Queen Mary 2 by that very definition is not the only ocean going liner still in commission.

 

If having one or maybe two scheduled back to back trips across the Atlantic per year with passengers using that service to get from one port to another makes a ship an ocean liner, then would that make it an ocean liner?

 

No matter what vindinctive words are used I am simply trying to find out why the Queen Mary 2 is an ocean liner.

 

The Marco Polo is still operational, she was built as an ocean liner, used as an ocean liner and might I suggest she was built to a more sturdy design than the Queen Mary 2?

 

This ship is still operational, she is still cruising the high seas and yet she is not deemed to be an ocean liner?

 

No matter what vindictive words are thrown in my direction all I am simply doing is asking why is the Queen Mary 2 an ocean liner?

 

The only reason I can think of is down to a regular and scheduled crossing of the Atlantic

 

 

 

Does that ship match the definition? Some folks might say yes, other might say no it does not.

 

 

 

Is the Queen Mary 2 a cruise ship that does the odd back to back run across the Atlantic or is she a ship that does the odd cruise inbetween back to back runs to New York?

 

I stand by my obsewrvatiuon of criticising those that suggest I do not like this ship... Those words are indeed childish and immature. How dare anyone try to tell me what I like or dislike. I am indeed guilty of being stubborn and maybe stubborn to the point of annoyance but all I am trying to do is answer a question that bugs me.

 

The Marco Polo is either an ocean liner or not an ocean liner. It was built as one, just like the Queen Mary 2 was built as one and both ships are still sailing the high seas.

 

 

My original question whicvh saw folks take this thread off topic still stands..

 

If and when the Titanic II becomes operational, will she take trade away from the Queen Mary 2 and if so will it see that ship doing fewer vists to New York? I am in the corner that believes there is only a finite number of people that enjoy this experience and wonder what the consequences might be.

 

Apologies for the thread drift and apologies for my stubborness but I will not be bullied into submission (all I want is an answer and I guess I will indeed ask this question elsewhere)

If the Titanic II takes away passengers from the QM2 and as a result of that the QM2 dramatically reduces the number of transatlantic crossings she does each year (Next year in 2014 the QM2 does 17 transatlantic crossings about the same number as this year 2013) then I would rather not see the Titanic II get built. When the proposed Titanic II is a smaller ship than the QM2 what WOW factor is there concerning the Titanic II? And I still think WOW when I look at the QM2. Also in my opinion the QM2's Britannia Restaurant is a more beautiful room than the first class restaurant aboard the original Titanic (In the movies A Night to Remember and James Cameron's Titanic, the Titanic's first class restaurant was faithfully and accurately re-created). But then again Wikipedia claims that Clive Palmer's wealth is only somewhere between $750 Million and $800 Million. Is this enough wealth to build the Titanic II? Regards,Jerry

I found this article and thought others might want to read it.

 

I wonder if they will have any passengers on board when they do the final cruise?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10169019/QE2-to-sail-for-final-time.html

Probably not. In the sales contract it is written that any new owner of the QE2, can not allow to carry any fare paying passengers for either a crossing or cruise aboard the QE2. Regards,Jerry

Not that I want to complain but I thought the topic of this thread was about the proposal to build Titanic II not about whether QM2 is an Ocean Liner or a Cruise Ship. My opinion is that QM2 is an Ocean Liner. Regards,Jerry

I still have to question as to whether this Ship Titanic II will ever be built to begin with. Just read this article from the newspaper The Australian to understand why I am skeptical as to whether Titanic II will ever actually be built. Here is the link http://www.theaustralian.com.au/out-the-real-clive-palmer/story-fn6tcxar-1226710922127 Regards,Jerry

I also remember that a rich wealthy South African man whose name is Sarel Gous wanted to build his version of the Titanic which would have been the largest Ocean Liner ever built to look like the Titanic with 4 funnels on top of the ship. He walked away from his project when he got sticker shock at the price it would cost to build his version of the Titanic, I think this was about a year or two before construction started on the QM2. Regards,Jerry

I still have to question as to whether this Ship Titanic II will ever be built to begin with. Just read this article from the newspaper The Australian to understand why I am skeptical as to whether Titanic II will ever actually be built. Here is the link http://www.theaustralian.com.au/out-the-real-clive-palmer/story-fn6tcxar-1226710922127 Regards,Jerry

I can see it now: Jurassic Ship.:eek::D

In the film Jurassic Ship the parts of Fred Flintstone & Wilma Flintstone will be played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet :D Regards,Jerry