"Titanic II"... Again!

[Parker Brown]

...Just when you thought everyone had stopped talking about it, another businessman has stepped out of the blue and announced plans to rebuild Titanic: this time, it's Australian billionaire and politician Clive Palmer.

Like all the others, he says the new replica will be fitted out with the latest modern technology, such as diesel engines, bow thrusters, an enlarged rudder, electronic navigation systems, etc. I even heard he's planning on using the dummy funnels for restaurants and an "Internet room". Unlike the others, however, he actually has the means to do it; the man is a multi-billionaire, and has even been talking with a shipyard in China... And they seem to be on board with it too.

So what do you guys think? Could this actually work out, and would you want it to anyways? Or will all of this just go belly-up like the rest once he reads over post-2010 SOLAS regulations?

On a personal level, I'm not sure I really want it to happen... And the reasons for this are twofold. The first is that some of the changes he's proposing seem a little bit odd (such as smokestack restaurants and the like), and the name Titanic II is in poor taste (Gigantic would be better, in my opinion). And the second reason? I wanted to do it!

Anyways, I'm looking forward to hearing what you all think about this.

All the Best,
-Parker

[Joshua Noble]

In my opinion, it shouldn't happen at all. It was a tragedy and should not be commercialized more. It'd be one thing to recreate what it would've been like, but let there be but one TItanic.

[Daniel Díaz]

I don,t Like that sorry. For my the genuine Titanic Its Rests on the seabed... that is only noise from millonaires.

Regards

Daniel Díaz.

[Michael H Standart]

I don't know if I can say it "shouldn't" happen, but I can be reasonably confident that if this goes through, it's going to be more of an Edwardian themed sideshow but with modern trappings including internet cafes. In other words, it won't be the real thing or even faithful to it, and for the extremely narrow niche market that something like this would appeal to, nothing less then faithful would do.

Therein lies the rub: Any attempt to build a genuinely faithful replica is certainly possible from a technical standpoint, but would literally be illegal to operate as anything other then a static afloat display.

[Tom McCluskie]

Under current maritime legislation (IMCO) it would be illegal to construct an actual replica of Titanic even as a static display. The dreaded 'elf and safety brigade would have apoplexy at even the though of such a thing.

[Michael H Standart]

>>The dreaded 'elf and safety brigade would have apoplexy at even the though of such a thing.<<

Hi Tom, I'm reasonably sure that the fire inspector would have a near fatal stroke at the sight of all the wooden fittings, paneling and decor. The electrical system doesn't even bear discussion!

I don't know what the guy who's sponsoring this is thinking, but it's his money to lose.

[Richard A Krebes]

Well it has been eight months and a day since the centennial and this proposal seems to be still on the boards judging by this Wikiepdia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_II

Whole project is sheer bad taste in my opinion. Why re-create a vessel that was not a "ship of dreams" but a ship of death? You don't see anybody building an operating replica of the Lusitania, Empress of Ireland, or the HMS Hood or USS Arizona, do we?

[Harry Beal]

So why don’t you contact Palmer and tell him why it’s such a bad idea. Once you explain your reasoning I’m sure he will cancel the whole project.

Harry