
The Titanic Compared With a Modern Cruiseship (2014) - bookofjoe
https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/titanic-compared-modern-cruiseship.html
======
ethbro
One thing that terrible link fails to note is that they're comparing a
supersized cruise ship to a transoceanic liner.

For a modern transoceanic liner, look at the RMS Queen Mary 2:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary_2](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary_2)

Cruise ships are just mobile enough to scoot around whatever close-shore
locales they serve.

Ocean liners are built for fast transoceanic voyages.

~~~
dan-robertson
The article suggests that the cruise ship is faster than the titanic, so maybe
you want to make a point about being designed to always be close to port or
something, but I’m not sure that’s really the case either as these ships must
go from the place they are built to wherever they are operating the cruise and
that place may move about the world from time to time.

I don’t think you really can get an apple’s to apple’s comparison because
people don’t really travel on fast ocean-liners anymore. They travel on
aeroplanes. So the category that the titanic fits in doesn’t really exist
anymore.

~~~
ethbro
Titanic: 24 kts (1912)

Allure: 23 kts (2010)

Queen Mary 2: 30 kts (2003)

If your benchmark is 100 year old technology, then you've probably got an
agenda in your comparison...

* All numbers from Wikipedia

------
dredmorbius
The _Titanic_ was (just barely) the largest ship of its era.

I'm fascinated by the _Great Eastern_ launched in 1858, and not surpassed in
size and capacity until _Titanic_ 's period. In length she held the record
until 1899, in tonnage, 1901, and in passengers, 1913, the year _after_ the
_Titanic_ sank.

 _Great Eastern_ experienced numerous technical challenges and was a mixed
commercial success. She ended her service largely as a telegraph cable-laying
ship, pressaging today's undersea Internet cables.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern)

~~~
jen20
Titanic was never the largest ship - her sister Olympic had identical
measurements. Titanic was the _heaviest_ ship however.

~~~
dredmorbius
Fair point, though as my noting of _Great Eastern_ 's dimensions there are
numerous metrics of ship size, including multiple variants of several of
these: linear dimensions, length overall, length at waterline, beam, height
overall, draft, height above waterline, and the various measures of tonnage.
Disputes can generally be raised and justified on some basis.

------
gumby
> "175 ft (including the long thing)"

What on earth? Do they mean the smokestack (as the singular is used) or the
two masts each of which is higher?

I know this is a joke article but still...

------
daeken
I just got back from my first cruise, a 6-day on the Disney Dream. I couldn't
help but keep thinking about how astounding the Titanic was at the time, and
how tiny it is in comparison to the ship I was on. It was a genuinely
incredible experience, but I can only imagine what it would be like to take a
ship like that to the new world, to start a new life.

------
lupinglade
The Titanic looks so much better.

~~~
Hoasi
From the outside, the modern cruise ship looks like a block of cheap apartment
dwellings attached to a hull.

------
daphneokeefe
Big fan of cruises, but only on ships with 200 or fewer passengers (Wind Star,
Viking River Cruises and their ilk).

I think it's kinda sad that we don't have many cruises along our wonderful
American rivers and coasts. You have to go to Mexico or the Caribbean or
Hawaii or Alaska. My understanding is that they are cost-prohibitive because
of a federal law requiring that any ship making a second stop in another US
port is required to pay basically union pay scale to all workers.

~~~
alkonaut
It’s sad if paying union wages makes some service “cost-prohibitive”. Every
cruise I ever took was 100% union (in Europe).

~~~
Arnt
GP is probably talking about the Jones Act, which was intended to affect
transport of goods. If it applies to cruise ships that's surely an unintended
effect. Only ships owned and crewed 100% by Americans could (and can) go from
one American port to another, IIRC.

------
sleavey
Slightly off-topic, but given the brevity of the linked blog post and the lack
of conversation here, why not.

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of cruises? You're stuck on a boat with
thousands of other people as you are taken to predefined locations and undergo
what I like to call "organised fun". While on board, you're their captive
audience as they sell you overpriced food and drink and generally try to
sponge as much extra money from you as possible. Meanwhile, you're surrounded
by people from the same place as you, who, at least for me, you might be
trying to be get away from. Then, at each port, typically in a place with a
tourism-driven economy, the locals identify and surround you everywhere you
go, trying to sell you yet more stuff because they know you're probably rich
and suggestible. I have friends who went on holiday to Curaçao and were told
by the locals not to shop on [insert day here] because that's the day of the
week the cruises come in, when they increase their prices 50%.

While this is somewhat of a rant, I've never been on a cruise and I'm
genuinely interested to hear from someone who has been on one and enjoyed it -
what their reasons were, whether they thought it was good value, relaxing,
etc.

~~~
freemonster
My wife and I went on cruises every year for more than 10 years starting
mid-90's. At the time, it was more relaxing (with less to do) and gave the
opportunity to disconnect. We liked to dress up for dinner and sit with the
same (random) people for the entire time of the cruise. Internet was as
outrageous of a cost as a phone call at the time so where I worked doing
software engineering, I told them to call me anytime! Perfect, the never
did... and as a plus we got to visit many ports of call to see what we would
like to go back to for longer (taste of different places to decide if we would
mesh for a whole week there). Shopping was fine if you take the time to
bargain and know your market prices before you go. Tourist traps are still
traps at land or at sea... keep your guard up on vacation either way.

Our last cruise was not the same. Lots of fun stuff to do (which we can't
complain about trying a few with super long waits). Wifi everywhere (who needs
phone calls) to keep in touch with work ALL the time. Random people every meal
time at dinner who never dress up (unless you include polo shirts and shorts
as dressed up). Basically, for us it did lose appeal to try it. So, for some
this is exactly what they want, but lost its luster and special experience.

Advice - pick a cruse line that matches your preferences (kids, no-kids,
party, no-party, luxury, casual, etc) and you probably would have a good time.

~~~
Hoasi
> Random people every meal time at dinner who never dress up (..)

Things changed. According to this article[^1]; fun onboard P&O's Britannia
is... special.

[^1]: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/27/passenger-
in...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/27/passenger-in-clown-
suit-prompts-mass-brawl-on-po-cruise-ship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)

~~~
indigochill
From the article: "...things kicked off when another passenger appeared
dressed as a clown. This upset one of their party because they’d specifically
booked a cruise with no fancy dress."

For some reason classifying a clown costume as "fancy dress" tickles me.

~~~
jboles
It’s a British turn of phrase meaning any kind of party costume, not even
necessarily anything “fancy”.

