News on BBC

Not Cunard but may be of interest to some on this board:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7108835.stm

Jimmy

Photographs taken from the Nordnorge:

Photographs taken from the Nordnorge:

A deeply depressing sight. She's only two years younger than QE2.

Jimmy

Oh well - at least everyone got off the ship. Still a depressing sight though. If QM2 sinks - how would they get everyone off? How long would they have to wait in lifeboats until someone could get to them - say if they were in the middle of the Atlantic?

Don't mean to sound morbid, I just like to know these things.

Oh well - at least everyone got off the ship. Still a depressing sight though. If QM2 sinks - how would they get everyone off? How long would they have to wait in lifeboats until someone could get to them - say if they were in the middle of the Atlantic?

 

Don't mean to sound morbid, I just like to know these things.

Judging by how few other ships one sees in Mid-atlantic, a very long time. But looking on the bright side, that does mean there are fewer things to collide with, if she keeps south of the iceberg limit, as she does.:)

Oh well - at least everyone got off the ship. Still a depressing sight though. If QM2 sinks - how would they get everyone off? How long would they have to wait in lifeboats until someone could get to them - say if they were in the middle of the Atlantic?

 

Don't mean to sound morbid, I just like to know these things.

Catherine,

Think for a minute. You are hugely more likely to be killed on the road travelling to the ship, or flying home afterwards.

Cunard has never had a passenger lost due to accident in peacetime. And that record stands since 1840.

Added to that, the lifeboats are big, fitted with radar and there are other ships around. You can only see about 10 miles at sea (slightly more as you get higher) and you'd have other ships with you fairly quickly.

It was only four hours for the Carpathia to reach Titanic after all. (Carpathia was, as you probably know, a Cunarder).

You are probably more likely to die of a heart attack on board than drowning too......

Matthew

Catherine,

 

Think for a minute. You are hugely more likely to be killed on the road travelling to the ship, or flying home afterwards.

 

Cunard has never had a passenger lost due to accident in peacetime. And that record stands since 1840.

 

Added to that, the lifeboats are big, fitted with radar and there are other ships around. You can only see about 10 miles at sea (slightly more as you get higher) and you'd have other ships with you fairly quickly.

 

It was only four hours for the Carpathia to reach Titanic after all. (Carpathia was, as you probably know, a Cunarder).

 

You are probably more likely to die of a heart attack on board than drowning too......

 

Matthew

Cunard's safety record on the North Atlantic is extraordinary, when one considers the level of shipping losses in the ninetheenth century. And such a record must be guarded very jealously. Captain Rostron of the Carpathia, being a Cunard man, seems to have thought of everything it was possible to do. Nonetheless, I think there are fewer, because bigger, ships on the North Atlantic than a century ago. Nicer lifeboats though. :) Jane

Have you seen the QM2 lifeboats?, they are luxury compared to the open boats the passengers were in from Explorer. Although they were safe I bet there were some cold bodies by the time they were rescued.

We are going there on 18 December on Spirit of Adventure. I am sure we will survive.

David.

I have always used the figure of 50 miles for line of site transmission over water, due to the curvature of the earth. Now, if the AVERAGE ship could go 20 miles an hour, they could get to you in 2 1/2 hours if they were just out of sight. the truth is, you are in a shipping lane when doing the transatlantics. Others on here will certainly know more than I. I have seen plenty of ships passing us or us passing them on the Atlantic (I have not done a TA...YET!) and waves will hide even a large boat or ship a mile or two away if you are on the surface! Those lifeboats have supplies and motors. Remember, you use them to tender into ports! They have TWO engines each. (one of them had an engine break down when we were in St Lucia, I believe, and had to return to the ship alone. Or maybe it was Barbados. Can't remember) They have flares, radios, and provisions on board.

Remember, this ship was in the Antarctic.

Also, remember, if we ware within range of a Sea Stallion (and no, I do not know their range) the Coast Guard or other rescue service could send someone out to us- either to drop additional supplies or pick someone up. This isn't 1915!

It is a VERY sad sight to see, but this was an adventure ship. Hopefully, they can keep her afloat and maybe throw an airbag under her. (How they raise some of them)

I haven't read the article et, but Marc told me about it. (I've been working all day)

Keep your chin up. You're in excellent hands!

Karie

Sadly, she has now sunk. Everyone off safely, and judging from the news reports they all had time to find warm clothing. Just as well.

Mary

Sadly, she has now sunk. Everyone off safely, and judging from the news reports they all had time to find warm clothing. Just as well.

 

Mary

There were concerns here in New Zealand recently when cruise liners began doing trips down to the Antarctic form Australia and New Zealand because of the isolation and what would happen if there was an accident. I know that a lot of Kiwis were more concerned about the environmental effects such an accident would cause to the fragile ecosystem down there if one was to happen ....... I hope our worse fears arent about to come true...........

There were concerns here in New Zealand recently when cruise liners began doing trips down to the Antarctic form Australia and New Zealand because of the isolation and what would happen if there was an accident. I know that a lot of Kiwis were more concerned about the environmental effects such an accident would cause to the fragile ecosystem down there if one was to happen ....... I hope our worse fears arent about to come true...........

I hope so too - obviously for the environmental issues (local and global) that a sinking can cause, but also for selfish reasons - it is a destination that I would like to be able to consider in a few years (I watched nesting penguins on a webcam last year http://www.martingrund.de/pinguine/pinguincam1.htm , & they are just back again - it is fascinating & I have developed a penguin mania:D ).

Tourism in the Antarctic being as tightly controlled as (I believe) it is - it won't take much for all tourism to be completely banned:( - but then again, it does need protecting, how long is it going to be around in its present form anyway:( ?

Anyway, to lighten up, a sinking ship is not what I wanted to see just before getting on one that is 2 years older:D

Karen

(btw if you visit the penguins webcam & get white pictures, it is because it has snowed (as it appears it has today) try again later - on a sunny day it is all very beautiful:))

They said on the news, the hole was only the size of a fist. How did such a small hole manage to sink a ship?

They said on the news, the hole was only the size of a fist. How did such a small hole manage to sink a ship?

The hole may not have been the only damage - plates may have sprung welds - much as that 1912 ship was sunk mainly, it is now believed, because rivets popped, opening seams to the ocean. The Explorer also took quite a long time to sink - nearly 20 hours - compared to Titanic's two and a half hours or the Lusitania's truly terrifying 18 minutes.

Peter

The hole may not have been the only damage - plates may have sprung welds - much as that 1912 ship was sunk mainly, it is now believed, because rivets popped, opening seams to the ocean. The Explorer also took quite a long time to sink - nearly 20 hours - compared to Titanic's two and a half hours or the Lusitania's truly terrifying 18 minutes.

 

Peter

Even the two hours forty minutes of the Titanic was gentlemanly enough for all the boats to be launched and evacuate everyone in an orderly manner, if there had been enough boat spaces. And, of course, she sank evenly, rather than sloping over to one side. I believe her sister ship, Britannic sank considerably more quickly, for reasons no-one is quite clear about.

Even the two hours forty minutes of the Titanic was gentlemanly enough for all the boats to be launched and evacuate everyone in an orderly manner, if there had been enough boat spaces.

And if they had filled the spaces available another 500 might have lived.......

And if they had filled the spaces available another 500 might have lived.......

Quite so. Very strange.

Quite so. Very strange.

One hypothesis is that the memory of the loss of La Bourgogne played a prominent role in the minds of the Captain and his Officers. This French ship had sunk with catastrophic loss of passenger life - because of panic - hence the focus on stopping panic - and the later accounts of the disaster which stressed 'women and children first' and the manly Anglo Saxon stoicism of men in the face of death (unsaid, but in complete contrast to the cowardly panicking French on La Bourgogne). The sole female survivor of La Bourgogne (no children survived) told her story in a contemporary account of the Titanic sinking which contrasted the difference ('Not Like Bourgogne Disaster'):

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnch14.htm

Peter

Two cruise ships and two ferries have been "lost" this year :(

I am sure there must have been more damage than just the fist sized hole. As with Titanic, it could be a case of the ice cold water making the steel brittle.

Karen,

Wow, the Penguins are great. I see how a mania could develop. Have a wonderful trip on QE2.

So glad everyone is safe and warm today from the ship in Antartica. sorry about the ship though.

Denise

I have always used the figure of 50 miles for line of site transmission over water, due to the curvature of the earth.

I think it is considerably less than that. I haven't done the maths, but I'm of the understanding that it would be less than twenty miles.

Matthew

I think it is considerably less than that. I haven't done the maths, but I'm of the understanding that it would be less than twenty miles.

 

Matthew

At 5 ft. above sea level, the horizon at sea is 2.5 miles away.

At 90 ft. above sea level, or the height of QE2's bridge above sea level, the horizon is 10 3/4 miles away.

For 50 miles, one would have to be well more than 1000 ft. above sea level where the horizon would be 36 1/4 miles.

The formula is distance of sea horizon equals square root of height of eye in feet multiplied by 1.144

This from a chart in a book published some time ago by Commodore Bisset of the Cunard Line.

Unless the Commodore didn't know his math, or the earth's circumference has changed, it should still be accurate today... ;)

At 5 ft. above sea level, the horizon at sea is 2.5 miles away.

At 90 ft. above sea level, or the height of QE2's bridge above sea level, the horizon is 10 3/4 miles away.

 

For 50 miles, one would have to be well more than 1000 ft. above sea level where the horizon would be 36 1/4 miles.

 

The formula is distance of sea horizon equals square root of height of eye in feet multiplied by 1.144

 

This from a chart in a book published some time ago by Commodore Bisset of the Cunard Line.

Unless the Commodore didn't know his math, or the earth's circumference has changed, it should still be accurate today... ;)

Thanks, Kyle. I stand corrected. (or rather sit. I'm tired!)

But of course I was talking about radio waves. and you know how those things zig-zag! ;)

Karie- the dumb technician!