# was Titanic larger/smaller/comparable to your typical Carnival cruise ship today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118 "2012-04-18T03:22:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/21 "2012-04-19T14:53:57Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > And more’s the pity - there’s another great story there: [Violet Jessop - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Jessop) If I ever go back in time to the _Olympic_ circa 1911, I am grabbing her by the hair and chucking her overboard. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/22 "2012-04-19T15:22:00Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > If I ever go back in time to the _Olympic_ circa 1911, I am grabbing her by the hair and chucking her overboard. How steerage of you, you won’t get invited into the smoking room with that attitude. ---
**Author:** ![Kimballkid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5a626/32.png) [@Kimballkid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimballkid)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/23 "2012-04-19T20:12:38Z")
> [@mcgato](#): > > [The NY Times had a cute comparison of Titanic with modern cruise ships the other day.](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/sunday-review/a-passengers-lot-then-and-now.html?ref=sunday-review) Apparently the bathroom on the modern one is just to take up space as I don’t see a door to it on the drawing. ---
**Author:** ![Satellite\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Satellite\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satellite_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/24 "2012-04-19T23:43:55Z")
[Here](http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/03/cruise-ships.cfm)’s an article that contains an [image](http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/03/images/640_ship-comparison.jpg) that compares RMS Titanic, Costa Concordia, and Allure of the Seas. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/25 "2012-04-20T02:11:08Z")
> [@Satellite\_Guy](#): > > [Here](http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/03/cruise-ships.cfm)’s an article that contains an [image](http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/03/images/640_ship-comparison.jpg) that compares RMS Titanic, Costa Concordia, and Allure of the Seas. Fascinating article - thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/26 "2012-04-20T03:03:56Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Some first class staterooms did have attached bathrooms, and the suits would still be considered luxurious (except for the electronics, and lack of showers) by todays standards. Which makes all those plans to build a replica of the Titanic and run in as a cruise ship that were floating around after the movie came out all the more idiotic. Who the hell is going to pay to spend a vacation at sea w/ Edwardian plumbing? To say nothing of how pointless recreating 2nd Class & Steerage areas would be. One of the attached websites points out that one of the parlour suites cost $4,350 in 1912 - the equivalent of $83,200 in 2012 dollars. ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/27 "2012-04-20T03:28:23Z")
[![](https://lewislitjournal.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/big2-qm2titanic-yzmo-via-wikipedia.png) ](https://lewislitjournal.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/big2-qm2titanic-yzmo-via-wikipedia.png) Titanic VS Queen Mary 2 ---
**Author:** ![treber001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/97f17d/32.png) [@treber001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treber001)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/28 "2012-04-20T05:25:50Z")
If that was accurate, then without a doubt Queen Mary 2 was larger than the Titanic. Riding on those gigantic ships was one of my dreams and with any luck might happen someday. Lol ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/29 "2012-04-20T15:25:02Z")
> [@Satellite\_Guy](#): > > [Here](http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/03/cruise-ships.cfm)’s an article that contains an [image](http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/03/images/640_ship-comparison.jpg) that compares RMS Titanic, Costa Concordia, and Allure of the Seas. **Alka Seltzer** mentioned this above [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14979320&postcount=14), but his comment seems to have gone unnoticed, and the article linked by **Satellite^Guy** gets it wrong, too. The linked article states: > [@](#): > > At 269m and with a gross tonnage of 46,328 the Titanic was considered a colossus in its time, but a century later it would have been dwarfed by its modern counterparts. Heading the tale of the tape are Royal Caribbean’s twin Genesis Project ships - Oasis of the Seas and Allure of the Seas. These ships are 360m in length - although Allure of the Seas is officially 50mm longer - and weighs in at 225,282 tonnes, almost five times as heavy. This is incorrect. Royal Caribbean’s [_Oasis_-class cruise ships](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_class_cruise_ship) are \*\*NOT \*\*“five times as heavy” as the _Titanic_. [Gross tonnage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_tonnage) is a measure of ship’s overall internal volume, not weight or mass or displacement. Therefore, _Oasis_-class ships may have a gross tonnage (i.e. interior volume) that is nearly five times that of the Titanic, but the displacement or mass of the _Oasis_-class ships are much less, in the 100,000-ton range. Cite from [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Oasis_of_the_Seas) Wikipedia article: > [@](#): > > The gross tonnage of the Oasis of the Seas is 225,282. Her displacement—the actual mass of the vessel—is estimated at approximately 100,000 metric tons, slightly less than that of an American Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The displacement of \*Titanic \* was 52,310 tons. Therefore the _Oasis_-class ships only displace or weigh about **twice** as much as the _Titanic_, not five times as much. (This was extremely confusing to me when I first came across these terms, as U.S. Navy ships are only classified in terms of displacement, whereas the cruise industry seems to favor gross tonnage, and the two measures are not at all comparable–especially since the latter term is inexplicably a measure of volume.) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/30 "2012-04-21T06:38:57Z")
> [@robby](#): > > (This was extremely confusing to me when I first came across these terms, as U.S. Navy ships are only classified in terms of displacement, whereas the cruise industry seems to favor gross tonnage, and the two measures are not at all comparable–especially since the latter term is inexplicably a measure of volume.) Well most ships are cargo ships and how much they can fit is more important than how much they weigh. And the derivation of the term makes as much sense as a measure of volume as weight, since ton or tonne derives from tun, a large barrel. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/31 "2012-04-21T11:22:46Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > And the derivation of the term makes as much sense as a measure of volume as weight, since ton or tonne derives from tun, a large barrel. Thanks, I might be able to remember that now. Looking at the displacement and gross tonnage figures for Titanic and the latest cruise ships, the latter are much more efficient designs when it comes to delivering interior space. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/32 "2012-04-21T14:40:40Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Thanks, I might be able to remember that now. > > Looking at the displacement and gross tonnage figures for Titanic and the latest cruise ships, the latter are much more efficient designs when it comes to delivering interior space. Titanic was a passenger liner designed to get people from A to B. Cruise ships are for recreation and the idea had not taken off at the time. In fact Titanic’s sister ship _Olympic_ would be retrofitted in the 20’s to carry “Tourist” class passengers, a precursor of the modern idea which cruise lines operate on. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/33 "2012-04-21T23:19:28Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Thanks, I might be able to remember that now. > > Looking at the displacement and gross tonnage figures for Titanic and the latest cruise ships, the latter are much more efficient designs when it comes to delivering interior space. I don’t know that it is a matter of efficiency. The latter are just bigger. Interior volume increases geometrically, not linearly, as a function of weight. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/34 "2012-04-22T06:52:27Z")
If you’re ship superstitious, keep in mind that Costa’s ships are run by White Star under another name — which explains a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/35 "2012-04-22T09:53:33Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I don’t know that it is a matter of efficiency. The latter are just bigger. Interior volume increases geometrically, not linearly, as a function of weight. Modern cruise ships of similar displacement have more than twice the Gross Tonnage of Titanic. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/36 "2012-04-22T10:14:22Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Well most ships are cargo ships and how much they can fit is more important than how much they weigh. And the derivation of the term makes as much sense as a measure of volume as weight, since ton or tonne derives from tun, a large barrel. I’be fallen for this before. But knowing that the term is based on a ‘tun’ rather that the unit weight helps to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/37 "2012-04-22T10:39:20Z")
If you are “ship superstitious” you should, absent blissful ignorance about name change practices in the 21st century, think that most ships should be aground or sunk. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/38 "2012-04-22T10:42:05Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > If you are “ship superstitious” you should, absent blissful ignorance about name change practices in the 21st century, think that most ships should be aground or sunk. ??? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/39 "2012-04-22T10:44:55Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Modern cruise ships of similar displacement have more than twice the Gross Tonnage of Titanic. Because they enclose large amounts of air. You can call it efficiency I guess. I doubt that the basic hulls and machinery have got that much lighter. The real factor is just that the trend today is to put a gigantic box on the ship which weighs little for its size. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118/40 "2012-04-22T11:02:27Z")
I did say specifically, “more efficient at delivering interior space”, which is very important for the market they are in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-titanic-larger-smaller-comparable-to-your-typical-carnival-cruise-ship-today/619118.md?page=3)