revell's 1/700 rms oylmpic

[Guest]

I absolutely *hate* most modern cruise ship designs, those ungainly, overblown monstrosities. Titanic looks like a yacht, just quietly slipping through the water...

Or like a lady who knows she looks good, but doesn't feel the need to make a big deal about it.

[eddiesolo]

I absolutely *hate* most modern cruise ship designs, those ungainly, overblown monstrosities. Titanic looks like a yacht, just quietly slipping through the water...

Yep, to be practical in today's market cruise ships have to be bigger and offer more facilities at a cheaper price, to do this the new super-liners are actually mostly air. There superstructures are ali and composite materials with large open areas. One thing that is a surprise to many that although claims were made, Titanic and her sister ships where not all that luxurious to other top liners of the day. Yes they had better second class and steerage class but this was due to being new as well, she had a swimming pool which was novel at the time, but the Olympic class of ship was only marginalia more luxurious. The ticket prices of the day were about standard with other different company ships, especially in-line with German liners.

But I agree, I think most liners of the day showed beautiful lines compared to the monstrous lumps that cross the oceans now.

Si

[peterairfix]

Just look at the costa concordia for example

peter t

[eddiesolo]

Just look at the costa concordia for examplepeter t

Spot on Peter.

Si

[Guest]

Well, its no wonder they look more like floating hotels than transatlantic ocean liners. I was a travel agent a few years back and I had come across some literature from Cunard which said (in part), "For a ship like the QE2, that is, the size of, and with those operating costs, it would have to be sailing all the time with 66-70% capacity, just to break even. That says nothing about profit. It was air travel that killed it.

[eddiesolo]

Well, its no wonder they look more like floating hotels than transatlantic ocean liners. I was a travel agent a few years back and I had come across some literature from Cunard which said (in part), "For a ship like the QE2, that is, the size of, and with those operating costs, it would have to be sailing all the time with 66-70% capacity, just to break even. That says nothing about profit. It was air travel that killed it.

Jeez, at that rate it is untenable...real shame really as newer ships seem to have lost that charm of the sea.

Si

[flyjoe180]

There was a time when flying was far more expensive than travelling by sea. Countries like NZ rely heavily on air travel to connect us to the rest of the world. To go even to our nearest neighbours (Australia) takes four or five days by ship compared to three hours by air. Bit of a no brainer.

[Guest]

too add ,on progress like the lighting effect peter would like too add too mine in due course nice one dude cry !!