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.
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.
Here’s an article that contains an image that compares RMS Titanic, Costa Concordia, and Allure of the Seas.
Fascinating article - thanks.
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.
Titanic VS Queen Mary 2
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
Alka Seltzer mentioned this above here, but his comment seems to have gone unnoticed, and the article linked by Satellite^Guy gets it wrong, too.
The linked article states:
This is incorrect. Royal Caribbean’s Oasis-class cruise ships are **NOT **“five times as heavy” as the Titanic. 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 Wikipedia article:
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.)
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.
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.
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.
If you’re ship superstitious, keep in mind that Costa’s ships are run by White Star under another name — which explains a lot.
Modern cruise ships of similar displacement have more than twice the Gross Tonnage of Titanic.
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.
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.
???
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.
I did say specifically, “more efficient at delivering interior space”, which is very important for the market they are in.