Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Chinese-Built Replica of the Titanic Will Set Sail From Dubai in 2022 (fastcompany.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Great news for Celine Dion fans and James Cameron enthusiasts: The Titanic is set to sail again. From a report: Titanic II, a replica of the original Titanic, will make its first voyage in 2022. It will have room for 2,400 passengers and 900 crew members and have the same cabin layout and decor as the original legendary ocean liner. The $500 million ship, which will be built in China, is set to make its maiden voyage from Dubai to Southhampton, U.K in 2022.

The Titanic II will then embark on global routes, starting with the exact path of the original ship, traveling from Southampton to New York, minus the small detour to the ocean bottom, presumably. Making things safer for this journey at least: enough lifeboats, a hull that's welded rather than riveted, and a period of global warming that is melting all the icebergs. (Some scientists argue however that melting ice has led to more dangerous icebergs, not fewer.) Tickets aren't on sale yet, so there's no word as to whether they are selling round trip tickets or learning from experience and starting with one-way fares.


79 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. If it's made in China by Snotnose · · Score: 1, Redundant

    how does it's maiden voyage start in Dubai?

    1. Re:If it's made in China by laosland · · Score: 3, Informative

      Shakedown cruise?

    2. Re:If it's made in China by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      how does it's maiden voyage start in Dubai?

      The same way that the original Titanic's maiden voyage started from Southampton even though it was built in Northern Ireland.

    3. Re:If it's made in China by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong :-)

    4. Re:If it's made in China by mjwx · · Score: 1

      how does it's maiden voyage start in Dubai?

      The same way that the original Titanic's maiden voyage started from Southampton even though it was built in Northern Ireland.

      Ships go on shake down cruises before entering service. You don't simply start loading passengers before it's even cleared the drydock.

      My question is, are the Emirati's also importing an iceberg for authenticity?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:If it's made in China by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      how does it's maiden voyage start in Dubai

      What was the last time anybody saw an iceberg near Dubai?

  2. In the new version by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    The iceberg fires first

    1. Re:In the new version by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Just wondering - is that original iceberg still there at its location, or has it melted due to global warming?

    2. Re:In the new version by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Melted, Most north pole sea ice now melts and refreezes every year, the average length of time any ice lasts before melting again has diminished drastically over the last few decades.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  3. Life imitates "art" by Bradmont · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think they already made a film about this.

    1. Re:Life imitates "art" by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you just made my day! Really!!

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    2. Re:Life imitates "art" by rojash · · Score: 1

      Asylum always rocks. Only for those with a humor vein in them.

  4. A+ Summary by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary hit all the classic jokes, A+ for once:

    The Titanic II will then embark on global routes, starting with the exact path of the original ship, traveling from Southampton to New York, **minus the small detour to the ocean bottom, presumably.**

    Making things safer for this journey at least: **enough lifeboats**, a hull that's welded rather than riveted, and **a period of global warming that is melting all the icebergs**.

    1. Re:A+ Summary by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      riveting of hull wasn't an issue, not the cause of disaster. Even the steel composition really wasn't an issue, it was standard for the time even if too brittle with high sulfur and low nitrogen by today's standards. Even with modern steel if everything else was the same the thing probably would have sank anyway. The sister ship of the Titanic had a long and safe career for 20 years after the sinking.

    2. Re:A+ Summary by wwphx · · Score: 1

      Unlikely to happen. The guy in Australia who is doing all this is apparently a rather infamous blowhard. From what I read, he was elected to parliament but didn't participate much. Lots of business failures, the funding for Titanic 2 is predicated on winning and settling several lawsuits against Chinese companies. Ain't gonna happen. Unfortunately I can't find the source of what I read.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    3. Re:A+ Summary by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      There are suggestions that the rivets were not properly heat treated and so were brittle, meaning that panels popped apart easily, leading to multiple compartments being flooded. AFAIK this is based on some evidence from the wreck and the Britannic too, but somewhat speculative. Not that it was the only issue as there were plenty of others. But some have argued if it had it the iceberg head on it might have survived, but if the rivets were too brittle, probably not.

    4. Re:A+ Summary by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      There was the Olympic and Britannic, and one of them ended being sunk in WW1 by a torpedo. So the one with the long career was the other one.

    5. Re:A+ Summary by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Actually it might have been. One of the trail of issues that lead to the sinking was the switch from "best best" rivets to "best" rivets as a cost saving measure. Perhaps with stronger rivets less panels on the ship might have failed and if only two water tight compartments had been damaged instead of three it would have been able to sail on to New York.

      Other issues where the lowering of the waterproof bulkheads for a sweeping staircase, in which case it would have been able to survive three compartments being flooded.

      The watchman on duty at the time of the sinking forgetting his binoculars before sailing. With them he might have seen it sooner and it could have been avoided.

      Finally slamming the ship in to full reverse and trying to steer away from the iceberg. When you go full reverse you loose your steering, so it should have been full reverse and ram the iceberg, only flooding the front compartment or just slowed down and steered away, and they might have missed it.

    6. Re:A+ Summary by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the failure (going on a 30 year old memory here) is that it was linked to the inability to prevent a hull breach from flooding the entire vessel.

      Hopefully they've updated the design to better isolate the impact of any damage.

    7. Re:A+ Summary by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      **minus the small detour to the ocean bottom, presumably.**

      If they built it to be submersible that would be pretty cool.

      Imagine the advertising:

      "View the original wreck on your voyage across the Atlantic"

      Does climate change increase or decrease the number of icebergs? I was thinking it might be fewer, but maybe more are breaking off the ice sheets and drifting into shipping lanes..

    8. Re:A+ Summary by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Being fair to EJ Smith, it was his first round with this vehicle, he wasn't used to the controls and the handling yet. Conventionally designed ships probably fared better on a glancing blow.

    9. Re:A+ Summary by twdorris · · Score: 3, Funny

      The summary hit all the classic jokes, A+ for once:

      Agreed. And I'll add my personal favorite from the article to the list.

      Tickets aren’t on sale yet, so there’s no word as to whether they are selling round trip tickets or learning from experience and starting with one-way fares.

    10. Re:A+ Summary by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      not talking about the other ship that hit naval mine

    11. Re: A+ Summary by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      That was my understanding, as well: inadequate bulkheads that didn't extend all the way upwards allowed a domino-effect of compartment flooding...

    12. Re:A+ Summary by hoofie · · Score: 1

      There were a number of instance where ships rammed icebergs bow-on and survived. If Titanic had hit square-on the bow the outcome may have been different. However there is also wreck evidence and survivor records indicating that the double-bottom was ripped open by an underwater shelf on the iceberg which would have been fatal damage on it's own.

    13. Re:A+ Summary by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      Agreed, the summary was absolutely riveting.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    14. Re:A+ Summary by mcswell · · Score: 1

      weld one!

  5. I don't know..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who would want to sail on a cheap Chinese knock-off of the Titanic?

    1. Re: I don't know..... by tigersha · · Score: 1

      All the fine linen is probably woven with hands of the finest Bangladeshi Virgin Slaves too, so much as I know the Chinese.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    2. Re:I don't know..... by plopez · · Score: 2

      They couldn't get it up.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  6. Courtesy of Rick & Morty by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2
    https://youtu.be/DtEiPIPC6LQ?t...

    "Uh, sir...there's *not* a problem"

  7. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "would of" - BZZZZZZT! Ask your third-grader how that's spelled.

  8. fake boat! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Well... If it isn't riveted it's just a fake boat. It should be re-name Boaty McBoatface.

  9. How is Titanic II to hit an iceberg from Duabi? by erice · · Score: 1

    Oh, right. They already thought of that.

  10. Re:So if it an exact replica... by Bobrick · · Score: 1

    TFS already covered those, and better, but thanks for playing.

  11. Re:Tickets by Bobrick · · Score: 1

    Look up "Star Citizen" for something even more ridiculous.

  12. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Also, the new ship will have a lower top speed. The original Titanic was built for speed. Additionally, the ship was sailing at top speed to get a PR boost by setting a new speed record for an Atlantic crossing. People wanted to travel between Europe and North America as quickly as possible, and would pay a premium to get there faster. Much of the interior was taken up with powerful steam engines, exhaust stacks, and fuel.

    Today, anyone in a rush will fly. People on cruise ships are in no hurry, and the ship board time is a big part of the experience. So the ship will have a smaller engine, and a lower top speed. Several of the 4 smoke stacks are fake, with only the exterior mounted on top of the ship. Stairwells are placed in the interior space that would be used by real smoke stacks.

  13. It would be kind of silly if they burned coal... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    ... which was the driving point of the smokestacks.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  14. Re:Tickets by Cederic · · Score: 2

    You can already buy "Round the world" cruise tickets for 2020 and will struggle to find anything still available for 2019, so it's not terribly abnormal.

  15. You might want to research... by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    ...Clive Palmer's glorious career before getting very excited by this. He's the 'brains' behind this piece of publicity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:You might want to research... by turp182 · · Score: 1

      He's mention in TFA as the originating planner. Thanks for the link, now I have to read up on Palmersaurus, his animatronic dinosaur park...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  16. "Tickets aren't on sale yet, by Escogido · · Score: 1

    so there’s no word as to whether they are selling round trip tickets or learning from experience and starting with one-way fares."

    actually, that works the other way round - if they "learned from experience", they should push for round trip tickets, because otherwise they may have a little problem selling return fares a little later :p

  17. What about the iceberg? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

    Surely they will make a replica of that as well, to copy the entire experience of titanic!

    1. Re:What about the iceberg? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      They will probably make the replica iceberg out ot expanded polystyrene, so it will be a little disappointing.

  18. What about the plastic? by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    There's enough plastic in the sea, they could do it easily.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  19. modern guidance tech enough? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    With modern radar and other guidance tech very few ships hit icebergs. On rare occasions they hit other ships, but that is about it. So, how likely would it be for the original Titanic design to sink in a normal lifespan if only the control room was modernized?

    1. Re:modern guidance tech enough? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The Olympic sailed for 26 years. It was scrapped, not sunk.
      The Britannic was doing fine until it sailed in to a mine in WWI.

      There's a good chance any modern ship would sink when blown up.

    2. Re:modern guidance tech enough? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Depends on who is crewing her. The US Navy in the Pacific has been pretty good at hitting things over the past couple of years.

  20. Will I go to Hell for thinking of this? by McFortner · · Score: 1

    All I can think of is the irony if the Titanic II gets hit by an iceberg and comes to rest at the bottom of the sea right next to the original Titanic.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  21. It's a cheap ship by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Really, half a billion sounds a lot until you realise it's only around the budget of two DC films... and at least this ship is unlikely to sink without trace!

    1. Re:It's a cheap ship by plopez · · Score: 1

      or about a squadron of f35's

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:It's a cheap ship by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      You won't get a squadron of F-35s as a squadron is usually 12 or 24 planes and the F-35 costs around $135M. You might get a flight of F-35s which is 3 or 4 planes.

    3. Re:It's a cheap ship by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      That's more than the original though. According to wikipedia, adjusted for inflation and the exchange rate, the original would cost $144.5 million in 2018.

      Note that the budget, not including marketing, for James Cameron's Titanic was $200 million in 1997. It would actually have cost less for him to build a have full-up duplicate of the actual ship built and sunk so he could film it actually happening, then it did for him to make the movie.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
  22. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    So what, three of the four are fake? Why not just say three?

    Because I don't know if that is correct.

  23. I fail to see the point... by bkmoore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get it that the Titanic has become iconic for an era in ocean travel, but I don't see the point in recreating Titanic as a modern business venture. She'll probably do well initially until all the hardcore Titanic fans have had their obligatory voyage. But what then? It's almost as if someone decided to revive a DC-7 or Super Constellation and offered a "Pan Am" like service from Idlewild to Charles De Gaule at 200 mph and 20,000 feet. Cool yes, but I highly doubt a solid business plan.

    1. Re:I fail to see the point... by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      But what then?

      Well, first off they can milk it a bit by offering tickets to a couple named "Jack" and "Rose" if they want to get married on board, using the PR to help keep the ship in the news. Depending on how many passengers they can take at a clip, it might not take them too long to get close enough to a break-even point that they can sell the ship to Royal Caribbean or Norwegian to add to their fleets at $0.50 on the dollar. They might even pay a premium if they can keep the naming rights. If all else fails, gut it and let it be a cargo ship.

      Sure, it's unlikely to be a cash cow for the original builders, but i can't imagine the Titanic II not making its money back before its decommission.

  24. Who is making the other part? by russotto · · Score: 1

    What country is making the replica of the iceberg for it to hit?

  25. Radar for icebergs by doug141 · · Score: 1

    Summary left out the best improvement: It'll have radar to see icebergs.

  26. Clive Palmer our local titanic nutter by labnet · · Score: 2

    Clive Palmer is a local billionaire mining magnate/nutter has been trying to get this project up since 2012.
    Famous for starting a political party that went nowhere, buying up a north Queensland nickle refinery that then went broke and buying a nice local resort in coolum that also went broke after he put garish models of dinosaurs in it.
    He also seems to love litigation... so i hope he doesn't read my post!
    I'll believe it when I see it.

    --
    46137
  27. Re: maybe if they rammed it things would of been b by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    They weren't watertight - bulkheads didn't extend all the way upwards.

  28. Capitalize on failure by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    They will make money using the name of the most famous navy failure. This is literally capitalizing on failure.

  29. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by hoofie · · Score: 1

    Titanic was NOT built specifically for speed. There were faster liners at the time which by design sacrificed comfort for speed [different hulls etc]. Titanic was always about the last word in luxury - it was no tortoise but even if it didn't sink it had no chance of making the fastest crossing.

  30. Dubai... clever! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Dubai... a place with no iceberg...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  31. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by adrn01 · · Score: 2

    Watched the entire vid. Rear two stacks are real, connected to the two engines. Front two contain observation platforms, with the radar and comm systems placed on top.

  32. Have we sunk that low? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Wait... Is this an Onion article?

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    1. Re:Have we sunk that low? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No far worse. This is real. Even worse than this being real is that the person who came up with the idea: Clive Palmer is real too.

  33. Palmersaurus dinosaur park by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Only Clive Palmer could build a resort with mechatronic dinosaurs so horrible that the dinosaurs themselves commit suicide:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/fire-guts-jeff-the-dinosaur-at-clive-palmer-resort/6276188

    1. Re:Palmersaurus dinosaur park by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Again with link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20...

  34. Hope it works better than Jurassic Park by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    This brought to you by the same brain that thought it would be a good idea to build a mechanised Jurassic Park called Palmersaurus. It was a curious oddity, but just so you know the park was so bad even the mechanised dinosaurs committed suicide: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20...
    https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

  35. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by niks42 · · Score: 1

    Except Kate Winslet would have ended up on the iceberg. Oh, wait .. now there's a plot twist.

  36. Iceberg bet by greylion3 · · Score: 1

    I just know someone will start a bet whether this will hit an iceberg too.

    --
    Privacy begins with ..
  37. space is hard by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Hey, it's not like it's brain surgery...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:space is hard by mcswell · · Score: 1

      You mean it's not like rocket science.

      All seriousness aside, I think it ought to be called rocket engineering, not rocket science. That said...I once gave a talk (PowerPoint, I'm afraid) in which we used a diagram of a rocket as an analogy to the software we were building. The three main components of the rocket--fuel, oxidizer, and the rocket engine--corresponded well to the three components of our software, one of which was even called an engine. One of the people listening--bless her!--said, "What they're doing is so complicated, they use rocket science to explain it."

      Oh, and btw: I don't believe space is hard, nor even soft; it's a vacuum, more or less...

  38. maek teh world more wierder by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    It would make more sense for India to build a submarine shaped like an iceberg in order to humiliate the Chinese.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  39. Dubai? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    But, her icebergs!

    (I guess the above was too short to post...)

  40. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by mcswell · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they'll use better rivets.

    (There's a well-researched, if controversial, theory that many of the rivets on the original Titanic were defective, particularly those where the iceberg struck. When a split started, entire steel plates began peeling off: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/0...)

  41. Re:It's a diesel by mcswell · · Score: 1

    Steam turbines cause vibrations? Strange, I was MPA (Main Propulsion Assistant) on a steam-powered destroyer (USS Goldsborough, DDG-20) for three years. I don't recall *any* vibrations from the turbines. I've even crawled on top of them when we were cruising at 15-20 knots, and I've been in the enginerooms during full power runs (33 knots), and I've never noticed any vibration that I could attribute to the turbines. Also stood next to the SSTGs (Ships Service Turbo Generators, 500KW until we went through overhaul and they were replaced by SSTGs with half again as much power); no vibrations. Now lots of other things vibrate: you could hear the forced draft blowers (feeding air to the boilers) a deck up, and some of the pumps might vibrate, maybe the ones that pumped seawater (fire pumps, cooling water pumps) if they picked up something, and even the fans that kept you from roasting while you were on watch (and which probably contributed to loss of hearing--Eh, what's that you say? ear protection? never heard of it!). And the propeller shafts could vibrate under certain speeds/ loads/ sea conditions.

    Now mind you, the parts of these that carry steam--which of course includes the turbines--were covered with thick asbestos lagging (I don't even want to think what that did to my body). And I'm sure that lagging dampened any sounds. But every turbine has a spinning shaft that comes out of it, with no lagging, and if there were a vibration, I would expect it to be transmitted through the shaft.

    I don't know what turbine construction was like in the early 1900s, but at least in my experience the turbines in later ships (Goldy was built in 1962) are remarkably quiet, amazingly so considering two of them could push a 4000+ ton ship through the water at 33 knots. That's 70,000 shaft horsepower. How's that compare with your Ford Mustang?

  42. Re:maybe if they rammed it things would of been be by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1
    You could have just read the summary...

    Making things safer for this journey at least: enough lifeboats, a hull that's welded rather than riveted, and a period of global warming that is melting all the icebergs.

  43. Makes me wonder... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    Who is building the replica iceberg? Will there be a slightly shorter twin (a replica of the R.M.S. Olympic) that can come to rescue passengers from the water?

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.