114,000 would be the Concordia tonnage, displacement is a bit over 51K.
Titanic in comparison displaced 52K but tonnage was only about 46K.
approx. numbers per wiki.
I don’t know very much about ships, but I am dimly aware that there is some distinction between tonnage, gross tonnage, deadweight tonnage, and gross register tonnage. And I know that if I get them mixed up, the admiralty folk among us will jump me.
I just looked up the displacement of each on wikipedia so I could be sure I was comparing apples to apples. Here and here. Xema, I’ll note that the link you provide does not mention the word “displacement.”
You know what? In the interest of eradicating ignorance, I am going to educate myself on these terms. Here are my findings.
[ul]
[li]Gross register tonnage - This is, counterintuitively, the total internal volume of the ship expressed in units equal to 100 cubic feet. These units are, hilariously, still called “tonnes.” Nothing to do with weight, and not directly related to “displacement.” Rarely used any more.[/li][li]Gross tonnage - Also not “displacement.” A value determined by a complicated formula involving the total volume of the ship, and the total volume of the ship (again). Makes absolutely no sense, from what I can tell. This seems to be a lot bigger in relation to displacement (see below) now that we know how to make more voluminous ships. This number is often given when describing the size of modern ships, and it’s often mistakenly given the unit “tonne.” That’s incorrect as this is technically a unitless measure.[/li][li]Deadweight tonnage - The amount of weight a ship can safely carry. Includes the weights of cargo, fuel, fresh water, ballast water, provisions, passengers, and crew. But not the ship itself, I guess? Used more as a measure of capacity, not really weight. But still measured in tonnes. [/li][*]Displacement - The weight of the water that is displaced by the ship when it is floating. Also, not coincidentally, the weight of the ship itself. Can variously refer to a full ship, an empty ship, or a ship that is full except for fuel and water. Measured in tons, but is the only term on this list that refers only to weight, and not to volume or capacity.[/ul]Old salts are free to correct me.
You’ve pretty much got it. I said “GRT” above and I should have said “GT”.
The problem with shipping is that its use of language has remained static while the meaning of words has changed in the rest of the world. “Ton” derives from a size of barrel ie volume.
GRT was effectively a way of measuring the volume of a ship available for carriage of cargo. When they modernised the measure (to GT), they wanted to do so without resulting in the number changing (from GRT) too much because GT/GRT is used for the calculation of taxes and shipowners didn’t want to suddenly find they were paying a heap more tax while still operating the same ship, just because the standard of measurement had changed such that it resulted in a bigger number. This means that the manner of calculating GT has some weird fudge factors applied.
Deadweight you have right. Effectively the measure of how much dense cargo a ship can carry (GRT is effectively the measure of how much light but bulky cargo a ship can carry).
Displacement you have right.
Thanks - ignorance fought.
Never–NCL, Princess, Celebrity, local lines, and yes, even Costa. I just asked some friends who were on a Princess cruise last month and they say they didn’t even go on deck–the muster stations were in the theater and other large rooms. The crew scanned their ID’s.
MSNBC is now reporting that the captain never did get back on the ship.
Edward Smith or a Birkenhead trooper he is not.
I must have missed the explanation somewhere, but if the gash is on the port side, why did the ship capsize to starboard?
The bridge team appear to have turned the vessel hard to port presumably in order to bring it around toward the nearby harbour, again presumably in order to get into shallow water and ground it.
Turning hard to control a list is not an unknown ship handling trick. Whether the bridge team made a decision to turn port about (rather than starboard about) for this reason or just because it was the best way to turn to reach harbour I don’t know.
The ship got most of the way around the turn before capsizing to starboard. I’m speculating but it may be that the vessel had taken on a lot of water portside, but during the turn this flowed to the starboard side and, combined with the list from the turn, capsized it that way.
And now it’s time for a most curious of questions:
Why is it, given the massive tear along the port quarter hull line (which has a boulder of Vesuvian proportions stuck in it) that the port horizontal stablizer amidships is undamaged? After all, it’s sticking out some 5 meters at the same depth as the hull tear… one would think it too should have been ripped off.
Hmmmm? Hmmmmm?
Answer that one…
Sorry, my bad. No, the coastguard isn’t playing around - i.e., I agree with you. Possibly a good thing for Mr Schettino that he was not having that conversation face to face…
You don’t suppose that there is one hole either side do you? The first being a hidden one to starboard that caused it to sink, the one that’s visible being a second hole, that was created during the manoeuvre to get to shallow water - hence the rocks missing the stabilizer?
Indeed how come the damage does not start from the bow and extend aft, rather than start amidships? There is only one possible explanation that I can think of: the vessel was turning starboard full when it hit. Why would it be turning starboard full? A speculation that come to mind immediately is that the bridge team got an alarm or otherwise noticed the depth decreasing rapidamente and tried to take evasive action.
As I’ve been at pains to say, it’s early days yet, but that’s my best guess.
…or the bridge team suddenly realised they were further west than intended.
Kudos to you. As you’re aware but perhaps a lot of our fellow readers aren’t, ships pivot about their bow being rear steerers. The bridge has realised they’ve overcooked it, and the rear has swung into the rocks after the horizontal stablizer had already passed the danger.
The black box will confirm this of course, but the evidence is hard to argue. As you’ve observed, the location of the hull tear and it’s water line depth relative to the the rest of the hull and the stablizer indicates a rear pivot of the stern to port - indicative of hard starboard on the rudder - as in mximum starboard turn.
Heh Heh Heh. I can assure you there’s a hole on the starboard side of the hull… now.
Directly addressing the OP, here’s one suggestion using inflatable bags.
To be fair, getting back on the ship at that point probably was dangerous and dumb.