Titanic:
insufficient life boat capacity
poor procedure for abandoning a ship
Sailing too fast for the conditions
Failing to heed ice warnings
Failing to deliver ice warnings to captain
Sideswiping the berg instead of head on where she could remain afloat
Poorly conceived watertight subdivision

SSNorway
Too frequent lighting up and shutting down boilers leading to thermal fatigue

Poor boiler water quality
Band aid tube repairs instead of replacement
Replacing boilers
Conversion to diesel

In both cases any one thing done would have prevented or mitigated the disaster.

Beside that the sinking of a ship following a collision with an iceberg is someting entirely than a boiler explosion:

Force majeure played a role in the sinking of the Titanic whereas it did not play any role in the case of the boiler explosion aboard Norway. The boiler of Norway did blow up because of negligence and unsuitable repairs. This could have been avoided. Not all factors that contributed to the Titanic disaster could have been avoided (at that time).

Lack of maintenance appears to be one of the causes of the explosion on the ex ss Norway, according to the released reports, and which also led to the death and injuries to many of the ships crew.

There are several cruise ship companies still running well maintained steam turbine powered cruise ships with no problems !

This sort of incident can not be compared to the sinking of the Titanic when she hit an iceberg !

I do not know where your thinking is coming from to write what you posted but certainly it is far from being correct !

Neil ( Bob )

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: Neil Whitmore ( Bob ) ]

The events are chalk and cheese

I did not make myself clear. The parallel is the Titanic and SSNorway disasters were a result of bad management.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
I do not see any at all parallels at all.

Beside that the sinking of a ship following a collision with an iceberg is someting entirely than a boiler explosion:

Force majeure played a role in the sinking of the Titanic whereas it did not play any role in the case of the boiler explosion aboard Norway. The boiler of Norway did blow up because of negligence and unsuitable repairs. This could have been avoided. Not all factors that contributed to the Titanic disaster could have been avoided (at that time).

This are two entirely different cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
Ernst,

The events are chalk and cheese

I did not make myself clear. The parallel is the Titanic and SSNorway disasters were a result of bad management.

---

But that is totally wrong.

'Human error' and even negligence certainly contributed to the sinking of the Titanic - but don't forget that what you call 'bad management' today was not know to be 'bad management' in 1912. At the time a lot of things were just not yet understood or underestimated (e.g. evacuation procedures) and it is just ridiculous and also arrogant to call it 'bad management' form a nowadays point of view. Beside that, the weather also played quite a role - and this can hardly be managed.
(and BTW - hitting the ice berg 'head on' would not have avoided the sinking - model tests in the Hamburg towing tank some years ago more or less proved that)

The boiler of Norway exploded not because it was not know at that time how to operate and run such boilers. It might indeed be more and more difficult to find well trained, knowledgeable crew for such ships and repairs of such old machinery can be a logistical problem these days. (whether this contributed to the accident aboard Norway is another story) But it is in principle know how to do it and would it have been done properly the accident aboard Norway could have been avoided. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
... Any one step they could have done right would have mitigated or avoided the disaster.

Titanic:
...
Poorly conceived watertight subdivision

---

It's always easy after the event, especially long after, to say this or that was wrong, without real relation with the context then. I'm not a TITANIC fan at all but I'm a bit "fed up" of hearing here or there this common assumption that TITANIC was poorly conceived. This is simply not true considering this was in the 10s. At the time of her maiden voyage in 1912 she was among one of the most advanced and safe design, I mean architecturally (of course lifeboats were not enough and one thing you omitted, mentality and classes barrier which made the number of casualties even bigger). Besides very few other large ships of that era (MAURETANIA and LUSITANIA come to mind with their double bottom -but this was a special contract/exigence with the British gov -Admiralty- and Cunard for obtaining loans, contrarily to W.S.), TITANIC was among the very rare large ships to have watertight compartments at first! Had she been "poorly" conceived with no watertight bulkheads (even if they didn't go high enough and reaching a real watertight maindeck) like 99% of the other large ships then, she would probably have sunk in less than a hour, with many many more victims.

Conversion to diesel

Human ‘arrogance’ caused the Titanic disaster, not icebergs or fragile hull plates etc.

There was a belief in that period of history that modern technology was all powerful and could defeat nature. After all the Titanic was considered ‘unsinkable’. That's why they did not give her enough lifeboats. Another piece of technology would save her in any accident, the 'radio'.

Up until that point, the industrial revolution had seen engineering make progressively ever greater achievements. The Titanic disaster was a turning point in the publics outlook – for the first time technology was seen a fallible. The idealistic concept of a ‘brave new world’ was over.

The SS Norway’s demise was entirely different. Even if her boiler had not exploded, she appeared to be too outdated to compete with modern tonnage. NCL were using her for bargain-basement cruises, even including free booze!

Even if NCL had repaired/replaced the boilers, many of the public would be reluctant to cruise on a ‘death ship’. Her time had come.

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:
An interesting comparison, but I don’t see any connection either; apart from they are both passenger ships.

Human ‘arrogance’ caused the Titanic disaster, not icebergs or fragile hull plates etc.

There was a belief in that period of history that modern technology was all powerful and could defeat nature. After all the Titanic was considered ‘unsinkable’. That's why they did not give her enough lifeboats. Another piece of technology would save her in any accident, the 'radio'.

Up until that point, the industrial revolution had seen engineering make progressively ever greater achievements. The Titanic disaster was a turning point in the publics outlook – for the first time technology was seen a fallible. The idealistic concept of a ‘brave new world’ was over.

The SS Norway’s demise was entirely different. Even if her boiler had not exploded, she appeared to be too outdated to compete with modern tonnage. NCL were using her for bargain-basement cruises, even including free booze!

Even if NCL had repaired/replaced the boilers, many of the public would be reluctant to cruise on a ‘death ship’. Her time had come.

---

Hi Malcolm,
While I agree with you that Human arrogance caused the Titanic disaster, I must disagree that the SS Norway was a "death ship".

In my opinion, the SS Norway shuold have been retired back in 1990 as a 5-Star hotel ship.

It's the same "Human Arrogance" by Star/NCL that caused the SS Norway disaster in 2003, which led to the ship being sent to the Alang. I see history repeating itself. Bigger ships will not lead to huge profits. Just more costs involved.

I am quite amazed that the Cruise Industry could find so much money to build these huge vessels, but yet they can't find any money to renovate the SS United States and the SS France into 5-Star Hotels to expand their business model.

The thought that the SS United States will be rebuilt for sailing again is utter nonsense, considering what happened to the SS Norway. Arrogance is still a factor in this case, from both the passengers and CEO perspective.

Why would anyone want to go through the trouble of tearing out the Big U's engines and superstructure and make it like any other vessel? It's history will be long gone as a result. Why didn't NCL allowed the Project America hulls to be completed on US soil back in 2002-2003? This way, they could have named the ships MV United States and MV America that could have sailed on any US port. They never saw that potential.

NCL/Star has no intention of ever rebuilding the SS United States for sailing again. I wish that Star Cruises never got its hands on NCL Holdings to begin with. I'm glad that they never got their hands on Cunard. Otherwise, the QE2 would be resting on Alang by now.

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: Redlinekid2 ]

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: Redlinekid2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:

It's the same "Human Arrogance" by Star/NCL that caused the SS Norway disaster in 2003, which led to the ship being sent to the Alang. I see history repeating itself. Bigger ships will not lead to huge profits. Just more costs involved.

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: Redlinekid2 ]

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: Redlinekid2 ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
I am quite amazed that the Cruise Industry could find so much money to build these huge vessels, but yet they can't find any money to renovate the SS United States and the SS France into 5-Star Hotels to expand their business model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
Why didn't NCL allowed the Project America hulls to be completed on US soil back in 2002-2003?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
I wish that Star Cruises never got its hands on NCL Holdings to begin with. I'm glad that they never got their hands on Cunard. Otherwise, the QE2 would be resting on Alang by now.

---

As for QE2, in the unlikely situation of Star buying Cunard, I see no reason that things would have turned out any differently for her than they did with Carnival. Well, except perhaps she'd be becoming a hotel ship somewhere in Southeast Asia, instead of Dubai.

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: dougnewman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
...I must disagree that the SS Norway was a "death ship".

---

...what I meant was that the public would have probably still perceived the SS Norway as being 'dangerous' if she had been repaired, no matter how thoroughly and no matter how many safety inspections.

There were those that already perceived her as an old 'rust bucket' which was not true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dougnewman:
Do you really think the outcome for NORWAY would have been different had Carnival bought NCL, instead of Star?

---

Yes, Carnival would have got her on the beach at Alang quicker!

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
I am quite amazed that the Cruise Industry could find so much money to build these huge vessels, but yet they can't find any money to renovate the SS United States and the SS France into 5-Star Hotels to expand their business model.

This has been said many times before:

1) Hotel ships do not tend to be very successful/ profitable. Apart from the disadvantage of many small rooms (cabins) and the ongoing maintenance issues, people prefer to stay in a hotel in city and not in a dock.

2) SS United States: The cost of returning the Big-U back to service would be astronomical. (There has also been debate if she could be made to comply with modern SOLAS standards). Even then her on-board facilities would be limited compared to newbuilds. Lets not forget that the market for people who want to cruise on 'old' ships is a small one. Would she attract enough passengers to ever break even. let alone make a profit, if they did do it?

If you were a business person with a lot of spare cash, spending it on a newbuild which could hole 3-4,000 passengers would be a safer investment and almost certainly cheaper than renovating an old ship.

After the NCLA debacle, NCL are probably not feeling very financially adventurous!

[ 12-08-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

Titanic was a brand new ship and some of her deficits can certainly be attributed to human arrogance - like some of the actions of her crew. BUT not all of that was considered inappropriate at that time! Much of that was 'state of the art' in 1912 (how Titanic was built and operated) - certainly arrogant but that's how it was in 1912. (don't misread that as us not being arrogant today!) Titanic did NOT go down because regulations were severely violated or because people were extremely sloppy. (compared to what was standard in 1912)

The boiler of Norway on the other hand blew up because people very likely deliberately ignored existing knowledge on how to operate such a machine properly. If they would have stayed with that procedures it very likely would not have happened - it actually seems that deliberate inadequate modifications contributed to the disaster. This is not at all comparable to Titanic which was operated to the standards of her time - one just did not know better back then - whereas one knows very well today how to run a boiler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
[...]
I am quite amazed that the Cruise Industry could find so much money to build these huge vessels, but yet they can't find any money to renovate the SS United States and the SS France into 5-Star Hotels to expand their business model.

---

First, these bigger ships are much more economical per passenger than smaller vessel. Cruise vacations still have a small share of the overall tourism market -> it's not surprising at all.

Second, you seem to underestimate the costs of restoring such large, old ships. This would be more costly than a newly built vessel of the same size or capacity, very likely more expensive to operate and for most passengers not nearly as attractive as a modern ship with all it's amenities and features and therefore very difficult to sell. There is a reason why they build ships the way they build them - that's what people want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
[...]
[...]

Why didn't NCL allowed the Project America hulls to be completed on US soil back in 2002-2003? This way, they could have named the ships MV United States and MV America that could have sailed on any US port. They never saw that potential.

---

So Why not the SS France and the SS United States? The former passenger cabins could be combined to form larger unit suites and modern amendities while retaining it respective decour from the era of their madian voyage. Thus it's possible to see the Big U in this role if done correctly.

As for Canival Corp. obtaining NCL Holdings in 2000, I believe that they would have sold the ship to a another cruiseship operator with trade restrictions like the SS Rotterdam in 1997 to Premier Cruises. I haven't seen too many examples of Carnival sending their ships to the scrapyard.

Nevertheless, if one has the financial means to restore the SS United States, more power to them. I once mentioned that both the MS Kungsholm and the QE2 should be saved as hotel ships before any anouncement was made to buy them for this role. The response that I got was not practical because neither ships have their orignal interiors anymore and because they were altered to some extent, either internally or externally.

The projects are often compared to the Queen Mary in Long Beach because it has struggled to make a sustainable profit. But this served as a lesson plan as to how to avoid the problems that plagued the ship for so long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlinekid2:

The projects are often compared to the Queen Mary in Long Beach because it has struggled to make a sustainable profit. But this served as a lesson plan as to how to avoid the problems that plagued the ship for so long.

---

One benefit the others might have over QM is being located in areas w/few tourist attractions. QE2 will apparently be the center piece of a well designed development while her older fleetmate is located at a out-of-the way pier away from the toursit centers of the city. Long Beach today though is completely different than 30-40 years ago and now features popular upscale restaurants, clubs, hotels and shopping areas yet QM is still across the channel-away from it all.

QE2 is going to Dubai because of her name and nothing else. I doubt that the same ship without that name or the France would have had any chance for being preserved in Dubai.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:

]..... her older fleetmate is located at a out-of-the way pier away from the toursit centers of the city. Long Beach today though is completely different than 30-40 years ago and now features popular upscale restaurants, clubs, hotels and shopping areas yet QM is still across the channel-away from it all....

---